Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing, or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions

Implementing managed entry agreements in practice: The Dutch reality check

BACKGROUND

Conditional financing (CF) of expensive hospital drugs was applied in the Netherlands between 2006 and 2012; a 4-year coverage with evidence development (CED) framework for expensive hospital drugs. This study aims to evaluate the CF framework, focusing on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) procedures.

METHODS

Using a standardised data extraction form, researchers independently extracted information on procedural, methodological and decision-making aspects from HTA reports of drugs selected for CF.

RESULTS

Forty-nine drugs were chosen for CF, of which 12 underwent the full procedure. The procedure extended beyond the envisioned 4 years period for 11/12 drugs. Outcomes research studies conducted as part of CF provided insufficient scientific data to reach conclusions on appropriate use and cost-effectiveness of 5/12 drugs. After re-assessment, continuation of reimbursement was advised for 10/12 drugs, with 6 necessitating yet additional conditions for evidence generation. Notably, advice to discontinue reimbursement for 2/12 drugs has not yet been implemented in Dutch healthcare practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Theoretically, CF provided an option for quick but conditional access to drugs. However, numerous aspects related to the design and implementation of CF negatively affected its value in practice. Future CED schemes should aim to incorporate learnings from the CF example to increase their impact in healthcare practice.

Physicians' Decision Making on Adoption of New Technologies and Role of Coverage with Evidence Development: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

To foster value-based pricing and coverage with evidence development in Germany, certain new diagnostic and treatment methods have been subject to a benefit assessment since 2016 to determine their reimbursement. Although this is a paradigm shift, the German approach is limited to some few specific technologies for which reimbursement is requested. As physicians encounter this regulatory instrument, the aim of the study was to understand physicians' decision making regarding the adoption of new medical technologies and to identify their perspectives on the evidence base and financing with additional reimbursement systems.

METHODS

From April to August 2017, semistructured interviews with chief and senior physicians of vascular surgery and cardiology in inpatient care in Germany were conducted (N = 23). The interviews were carried out by one researcher in one-to-one appointments or via telephone. Data were analyzed inductively to identify factors and generate thematic categories using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 52 factors in eight categories influencing physicians' adoption of new technologies. The evidence base for new technologies was criticized (e.g., lack of available studies). Physicians' knowledge of the regulation of market approval and innovation payments varied. They recommended the utilization of new technologies in certain specialist centers and the facilitation of observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians saw the need for the new approach and supported its aim. However, its design and implementation appeared to be questionable from their medical perspective. The provision of summarized information on the benefit of technologies might be a possibility to assist physicians' decision making.

The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?

In 2010, the Australian Government introduced the managed entry scheme (MES) to improve patient access to subsidised drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and enhance the quality of evidence provided to decision makers. The aim of this paper was to critically review the Australian MES experience. We performed a comprehensive review of publicly available Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee online documents from January 2010 to July 2017. Relevant information on each MES agreement was systematically extracted, including its rationale, the conditions that guided its implementation and its policy outcomes. We identified 11 drugs where an MES was considered. Most of the identified drugs (75%) were antineoplastic agents and the main uncertainty was the overall survival benefit. More than half of the MES proposals were made by sponsors and most of the schemes were considered after previous rejected/deferred submissions for reimbursement. An MES was not established in 8 of 11 drugs (73%) despite the high evidence uncertainty. Nevertheless, six of these eight drugs were listed after the sponsors reduced their prices. Three MESs were established and implemented by Deeds of Agreement. The three cases were concluded and the required data were submitted within the agreed time frames. The need for feasibility and value of an MES should be carefully considered by stakeholders before embarking on such an agreement. It is essential to engage major stakeholders, including patient representatives, in this process. The conditions governing MESs should be clear, transparent and balanced to address the expectations of various stakeholders.

Managed Entry Agreements for Pharmaceuticals in the Context of Adaptive Pathways in Europe

As per the EMA definition, adaptive pathways is a scientific concept for the development of medicines which seeks to facilitate patient access to promising medicines addressing high unmet need through a prospectively planned approach in a sustainable way. This review reports the findings of activities undertaken by the ADAPT-SMART consortium to identify enablers and explore the suitability of managed entry agreements for adaptive pathways products in Europe. We found that during 2006-2016 outcomes-based managed entry agreements were not commonly used for products with a conditional marketing authorization or authorized under exceptional circumstances. The barriers and enablers to develop workable managed entry agreements models for adaptive pathways products were discussed through interviews and a multi-stakeholder workshop with a number of recommendations made in this paper.

The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) commissioned a 'mock technology appraisal' to assess whether changes to its methods and processes are needed. This report presents the findings of independent research commissioned to inform this appraisal and the deliberations of a panel convened by NICE to evaluate the mock appraisal.

METHODS

Our research included reviews to identify issues, analysis methods and conceptual differences and the relevance of alternative decision frameworks, alongside the development of an exemplar case study of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

RESULTS

An assessment of previous evaluations of regenerative medicines found that, although there were a number of evidential challenges, none was unique to regenerative medicines or was beyond the scope of existing methods used to conceptualise decision uncertainty. Regarding the clinical evidence for regenerative medicines, the issues were those associated with a limited evidence base but were not unique to regenerative medicines: small non-randomised studies, high variation in response and the intervention subject to continuing development. The relative treatment effects generated from single-arm trials are likely to be optimistic unless it is certain that the historical data have accurately estimated the efficacy of the control agent. Pivotal trials may use surrogate end points, which, on average, overestimate treatment effects. To reduce overall uncertainty, multivariate meta-analysis of all available data should be considered. Incorporating indirectly relevant but more reliable (more mature) data into the analysis can also be considered; such data may become available as a result of the evolving regulatory pathways being developed by the European Medicines Agency. For the exemplar case of CAR T-cell therapy, target product profiles (TPPs) were developed, which considered the 'curative' and 'bridging to stem-cell transplantation' treatment approaches separately. Within each TPP, three 'hypothetical' evidence sets (minimum, intermediate and mature) were generated to simulate the impact of alternative levels of precision and maturity in the clinical evidence. Subsequent assessments of cost-effectiveness were undertaken, employing the existing NICE reference case alongside additional analyses suggested within alternative frameworks. The additional exploratory analyses were undertaken to demonstrate how assessments of cost-effectiveness and uncertainty could be impacted by alternative managed entry agreements (MEAs), including price discounts, performance-related schemes and technology leasing. The panel deliberated on the range of TPPs, evidence sets and MEAs, commenting on the likely recommendations for each scenario. The panel discussed the challenges associated with the exemplar and regenerative medicines more broadly, focusing on the need for a robust quantification of the level of uncertainty in the cost-effective estimates and the potential value of MEAs in limiting the exposure of the NHS to high upfront costs and loss associated with a wrong decision.

CONCLUSIONS

It is to be expected that there will be a significant level of uncertainty in determining the clinical effectiveness of regenerative medicines and their long-term costs and benefits, but the existing methods available to estimate the implications of this uncertainty are sufficient. The use of risk sharing and MEAs between the NHS and manufacturers of regenerative medicines should be investigated further.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

How to design the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework

This paper presents a conceptual framework to analyse the design of the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies. The framework characterises the appraisal processes as a diagnostic test aimed at identifying cost-effective (true positive) and non-cost-effective (true negative) technologies. Using the framework, factors that influence the value of operating an appraisal process, in terms of net gain to population health, are identified. The framework is used to gain insight into current policy questions including (a) how rigorous the process should be, (b) who should have the burden of proof, and (c) how optimal design changes when allowing for appeals, price reductions, resubmissions, and re-evaluations. The paper demonstrates that there is no one optimal appraisal process and the process should be adapted over time and to the specific technology under assessment. Optimal design depends on country-specific features of (future) technologies, for example, effect, price, and size of the patient population, which might explain the difference in appraisal processes across countries. It is shown that burden of proof should be placed on the producers and that the impact of price reductions and patient access schemes on the producer's price setting should be considered when designing the appraisal process.

Payer and Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Considerations for Outcomes-Based Agreements in the United States

BACKGROUND

Considerable interest exists among health care payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers in designing outcomes-based agreements (OBAs) for medications for which evidence on real-world effectiveness is limited at product launch.

OBJECTIVES

To build hypothetical OBA models in which both payer and manufacturer can benefit.

METHODS

Models were developed for a hypothetical hypercholesterolemia OBA, in which the OBA was assumed to increase market access for a newly marketed medication. Fixed inputs were drug and outcome event costs from the literature over a 1-year OBA period. Model estimates were developed using a range of inputs for medication effectiveness, medical cost offsets, and the treated population size. Positive or negative feedback to the manufacturer was incorporated on the basis of expectations of drug performance through changes in the reimbursement level. Model simulations demonstrated that parameters had the greatest impact on payer cost and manufacturer reimbursement.

RESULTS

Models suggested that changes in the size of the population treated and drug effectiveness had the largest influence on reimbursement and costs. Despite sharing risk for potential product underperformance, manufacturer reimbursement increased relative to having no OBA, if the OBA improved market access for the new product. Although reduction in medical costs did not fully offset the cost of the medication, the payer could still save on net costs per patient relative to having no OBA by tying reimbursement to drug effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and health care payers have demonstrated interest in OBAs, and under a certain set of assumptions both may benefit.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

OBJECTIVES

Australia relies on managed entry agreements (MEAs) for many medicines added to the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Previous studies of Australian MEAs examined public domain documents and were not able to provide a comprehensive assessment of the types and operation of MEAs. This study used government documents approved for release to examine the implementation and administration of MEAs implemented January 2012 to May 2016.

METHODS

We accessed documents for medicines with MEAs on the PBS between January 2012 and May 2016. Data were extracted on Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC), type of MEA (financial, financial with outcomes, outcomes, and subcategories within each group), implementation and administration methods, source of MEA recommendation, and type of economic analysis.

RESULTS

Of all medication indication pairs (MIPs) recommended for listing, one-third had MEAs implemented. Our study of eighty-seven MIPs had 170 MEAs in place. The Government's expert health technology assessment (HTA) committee recommended MEAs for 90 percent of the eighty-seven MIPs. A total of 81 percent of MEAs were simple financial agreements: the majority either discounts (32 percent) or reimbursement caps (43 percent). Outcome-based MEAs were least common (5 percent). Ninety-two percent of MEAs were implemented and operated through legal agreements. Approximately half of the MIPs were listed on the basis of accepted claims of cost-minimization. Forty-nine percent of medicines were in ATC L group.

CONCLUSION

Advice from HTA evaluations strongly influences the implementation of ways to manage uncertainties while providing access to medicines. The government relied primarily on simple financial agreements for the managed entry of medicines for which there were perceived risks.

The HTA Risk Analysis Chart: Visualising the Need for and Potential Value of Managed Entry Agreements in Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Recent changes to the regulatory landscape of pharmaceuticals may sometimes require reimbursement authorities to issue guidance on technologies that have a less mature evidence base. Decision makers need to be aware of risks associated with such health technology assessment (HTA) decisions and the potential to manage this risk through managed entry agreements (MEAs).

OBJECTIVE

This work develops methods for quantifying risk associated with specific MEAs and for clearly communicating this to decision makers.

METHODS

We develop the 'HTA risk analysis chart', in which we present the payer strategy and uncertainty burden (P-SUB) as a measure of overall risk. The P-SUB consists of the payer uncertainty burden (PUB), the risk stemming from decision uncertainty as to which is the truly optimal technology from the relevant set of technologies, and the payer strategy burden (PSB), the additional risk of approving a technology that is not expected to be optimal. We demonstrate the approach using three recent technology appraisals from the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), each of which considered a price-based MEA.

RESULTS

The HTA risk analysis chart was calculated using results from standard probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In all three HTAs, the new interventions were associated with substantial risk as measured by the P-SUB. For one of these technologies, the P-SUB was reduced to zero with the proposed price reduction, making this intervention cost effective with near complete certainty. For the other two, the risk reduced substantially with a much reduced PSB and a slightly increased PUB.

CONCLUSIONS

The HTA risk analysis chart shows the risk that the healthcare payer incurs under unresolved decision uncertainty and when considering recommending a technology that is not expected to be optimal given current evidence. This allows the simultaneous consideration of financial and data-collection MEA schemes in an easily understood format. The use of HTA risk analysis charts will help to ensure that MEAs are considered within a standard utility-maximising health economic decision-making framework.

Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: An Updated International Review

Enthusiasm for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) continues but at variable pace across countries. Our objective was to identify and characterize publicly available cases and related trends for these arrangements. We performed a review of PBRSAs from 1993 to 2016 using the University of Washington PBRSA Database. Arrangements were categorized according to a previously published taxonomy. Macro-level trends were identified related to the timing of adoption, countries involved, types of arrangements, and disease areas. Our search yielded 437 arrangements. Among these, 183 (41.9%) were categorized as currently active, while 58.1% have expired. Five main types of arrangements have been identified, namely coverage with evidence development (149 cases, 34.1%), performance-linked reimbursement (104 cases, 23.8%), conditional treatment continuation (78 cases, 17.8%), financial or utilization (71 cases, 16.2%), and hybrid schemes with multiple components (35 cases, 8.0%). The pace of adoption varies across countries but has renewed an upward trend after a lull in 2012/2013. Conditions in the USA may be changing toward a more favorable environment of PBRSAs. Interest in PBRSAs remains high, suggesting they are a viable coverage and reimbursement mechanism for a wide range of medical products.

A proposed approach to accelerate evidence generation for genomic-based technologies in the context of a learning health system

Genomic technologies should demonstrate analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility prior to wider adoption in clinical practice. However, the question of clinical utility remains unanswered for many genomic technologies. In this paper, we propose three building blocks for rapid generation of evidence on clinical utility of promising genomic technologies that underpin clinical and policy decisions. We define promising genomic tests as those that have proven analytical and clinical validity. First, risk-sharing agreements could be implemented between payers and manufacturers to enable temporary coverage that would help incorporate promising technologies into routine clinical care. Second, existing data networks, such as the Sentinel Initiative and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) could be leveraged, augmented with genomic information to track the use of genomic technologies and monitor clinical outcomes in millions of people. Third, endorsement and engagement from key stakeholders will be needed to establish this collaborative model for rapid evidence generation; all stakeholders will benefit from better information regarding the clinical utility of these technologies. This collaborative model can create a multipurpose and reusable national resource that generates knowledge from data gathered as part of routine care to drive evidence-based clinical practice and health system changes.

Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs

Decisions about the adoption of medical interventions are informed by evidence on their costs and effects. For a range of reasons, evidence relating to medical devices may be limited. The decision to adopt a device early in its life cycle when the evidence base is least mature may impact on the prospects of acquiring further evidence to reduce uncertainties. Equally, rejecting a device will result in no uptake in practice and hence no chance to learn about performance. Decision options such as 'only in research' or 'approval with research' can overcome these issues by allowing patients early access to promising new technologies while limiting the risks associated with making incorrect decisions until more evidence or learning is established. In this paper, we set out the issues relating to uncertainty and the value of research specific to devices: learning curve effects, incremental device innovation, investment and irrecoverable costs, and dynamic pricing. We show the circumstances under which an only in research or approval with research scheme may be an appropriate policy choice. We also consider how the value of additional research might be shared between the manufacturer and health sector to help inform who might reasonably be expected to conduct the research needed. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Assessing the Expected Value of Research Studies in Reducing Uncertainty and Improving Implementation Dynamics

BACKGROUND

With low implementation of cost-effective health technologies being a problem in many health systems, it is worth considering the potential effects of research on implementation at the time of health technology assessment. Meaningful and realistic implementation estimates must be of dynamic nature.

OBJECTIVE

To extend existing methods for assessing the value of research studies in terms of both reduction of uncertainty and improvement in implementation by considering diffusion based on expert beliefs with and without further research conditional on the strength of evidence.

METHODS

We use expected value of sample information and expected value of specific implementation measure concepts accounting for the effects of specific research studies on implementation and the reduction of uncertainty. Diffusion theory and elicitation of expert beliefs about the shape of diffusion curves inform implementation dynamics. We illustrate use of the resulting dynamic expected value of research in a preterm birth screening technology and results are compared with those from a static analysis.

RESULTS

Allowing for diffusion based on expert beliefs had a significant impact on the expected value of research in the case study, suggesting that mistakes are made where static implementation levels are assumed. Incorporating the effects of research on implementation resulted in an increase in the expected value of research compared to the expected value of sample information alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing the expected value of research in reducing uncertainty and improving implementation dynamics has the potential to complement currently used analyses in health technology assessments, especially in recommendations for further research. The combination of expected value of research, diffusion theory, and elicitation described in this article is an important addition to the existing methods of health technology assessment.

The Challenge of Conditional Reimbursement: Stopping Reimbursement Can Be More Difficult Than Not Starting in the First Place!

BACKGROUND

Conditional reimbursement of new health technologies is increasingly considered as a useful policy instrument. It allows gathering more robust evidence regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new technologies without delaying market access. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that ending reimbursement and provision of a technology when it proves not to be effective or cost-effective in practice may be difficult.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how policymakers and the general public in the Netherlands value removing a previously reimbursed treatment from the basic benefits package relative to not including a new treatment.

METHODS

To investigate this issue, we used discrete-choice experiments. Mixed multinomial logit models were used to analyze the data. Compensating variation values and changes in probability of acceptance were calculated for withdrawal of reimbursement.

RESULTS

The results show that, ceteris paribus, both the general public (n = 1169) and policymakers (n = 90) prefer a treatment that is presently reimbursed over one that is presently not yet reimbursed.

CONCLUSIONS

Apparently, ending reimbursement is more difficult than not starting reimbursement in the first place, both for policymakers and for the public. Loss aversion is one of the possible explanations for this result. Policymakers in health care need to be aware of this effect before engaging in conditional reimbursement schemes.

Extrapolating Survival from Randomized Trials Using External Data: A Review of Methods

This article describes methods used to estimate parameters governing long-term survival, or times to other events, for health economic models. Specifically, the focus is on methods that combine shorter-term individual-level survival data from randomized trials with longer-term external data, thus using the longer-term data to aid extrapolation of the short-term data. This requires assumptions about how trends in survival for each treatment arm will continue after the follow-up period of the trial. Furthermore, using external data requires assumptions about how survival differs between the populations represented by the trial and external data. Study reports from a national health technology assessment program in the United Kingdom were searched, and the findings were combined with “pearl-growing” searches of the academic literature. We categorized the methods that have been used according to the assumptions they made about how the hazards of death vary between the external and internal data and through time, and we discuss the appropriateness of the assumptions in different circumstances. Modeling choices, parameter estimation, and characterization of uncertainty are discussed, and some suggestions for future research priorities in this area are given.

USING CLAIMS DATA FOR EVIDENCE GENERATION IN MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS

OBJECTIVES

This study assesses the use of routinely collected claims data for managed entry agreements (MEA) in the illustrative context of German statutory health insurance (SHI) funds.

METHODS

Based on a nonsystematic literature review, the data needs of different MEA were identified. A value-based typology to classify MEA on the basis of these data needs was developed. The typology is oriented toward health outcomes and utilization and costs, key components of a new technology's value. For each MEA type, the suitability of claims data in establishing evidence of the novel technology's value in routine care was systematically assessed. Assessment criteria were data availability, completeness, timeliness, confidentiality, reliability, and validity.

RESULTS

Claims data are better suited to MEA addressing uncertainty regarding the utilization and costs of a novel technology in routine care. In schemes where safety aspects or clinical effectiveness are assessed, the role of claims data is limited because clinical information is not included in sufficient detail.

CONCLUSIONS

The suitability of claims data depends on the source of uncertainty and, in consequence, the outcome measures chosen in the agreements. In all schemes, the validity of claims data should be judged with caution as data are collected for billing purposes. This framework may support manufacturers and payers in selecting the most suitable contract type and agreeing on contract conditions. More research is necessary to validate these results and to address remaining medical, economic, legal, and ethical questions of using claims data for MEA.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer: how much does it really cost?

INTRODUCTION

Despite the lack of randomized evidence, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being accepted as superior to conventional radiotherapy for patients with T1-2N0 non-small-cell lung cancer in the periphery of the lung and unfit or unwilling to undergo surgery. To introduce SBRT in a system of coverage with evidence development, a correct financing had to be determined.

METHODS

A time-driven activity-based costing model for radiotherapy was developed. Resource cost calculation of all radiotherapy treatments, standard and innovative, was conducted in 10 Belgian radiotherapy centers in the second half of 2012.

RESULTS

The average cost of lung SBRT across the 10 centers (6221&OV0556;) is in the range of the average costs of standard fractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy (5919&OV0556;) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7379&OV0556;) for lung cancer. Hypofractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy schemes are less costly (3993&OV0556; respectively 4730&OV0556;). The SBRT cost increases with the number of fractions and is highly dependent of personnel and equipment use. SBRT cost varies more by centre than conventional radiotherapy cost, reflecting different technologies, stages in the learning curve and a lack of clear guidance in this field.

CONCLUSIONS

Time-driven activity-based costing of radiotherapy is feasible in a multicentre setup, resulting in real-life resource costs that can form the basis for correct reimbursement schemes, supporting an early yet controlled introduction of innovative radiotherapy techniques in clinical practice.

New French Coverage with Evidence Development for Innovative Medical Devices: Improvements and Unresolved Issues

We describe here recent modifications to the French Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) scheme for innovative medical devices. CED can be defined as temporary coverage for a novel health product during collection of the additional evidence required to determine whether definitive coverage is possible. The principle refinements to the scheme include a more precise definition of what may be considered an innovative product, the possibility for device manufacturers to request CED either independently or in partnership with hospitals, and the establishment of processing deadlines for health authorities. In the long term, these modifications may increase the number of applications to the CED scheme, which could lead to unsustainable funding for future projects. It will also be necessary to ensure that the study conditions required by national health authorities are suitable for medical devices and that processing deadlines are met for the scheme to be fully operational. Overall, the modifications recently applied to the French CED scheme for innovative medical devices should increase the transparency of the process, and therefore be more appealing to medical device manufacturers.

Coverage With Evidence Development and Managed Entry in the Funding of Personalized Medicine: Practical and Ethical Challenges for Oncology

Personalized medicines hold promise for many diseases. However, demonstrating the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of these medicines can be difficult. It is essential that decision-making processes for funding new medicines, including personalized medicines, are both robust and fit for purpose. We will argue that randomized trials of personalized medicines should be routinely supplemented with other research methods, such as observational research and single-arm studies, and that managed-entry funding programs, such as coverage with evidence development, may offer a means of providing early access to technologies where there is uncertainty about efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness. These programs, however, raise a number of practical and ethical challenges that need to be worked through and resolved.

Value of Information Analysis Applied to the Economic Evaluation of Interventions Aimed at Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: An Illustration

Objectives

To investigate whether a value of information analysis, commonly applied in health care evaluations, is feasible and meaningful in the field of crime prevention.

Methods

Interventions aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency are increasingly being evaluated according to their cost-effectiveness. Results of cost-effectiveness models are subject to uncertainty in their cost and effect estimates. Further research can reduce that parameter uncertainty. The value of such further research can be estimated using a value of information analysis, as illustrated in the current study. We built upon an earlier published cost-effectiveness model that demonstrated the comparison of two interventions aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency. Outcomes were presented as costs per criminal activity free year.

Results

At a societal willingness-to-pay of €71,700 per criminal activity free year, further research to eliminate parameter uncertainty was valued at €176 million. Therefore, in this illustrative analysis, the value of information analysis determined that society should be willing to spend a maximum of €176 million in reducing decision uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness of the two interventions. Moreover, the results suggest that reducing uncertainty in some specific model parameters might be more valuable than in others.

Conclusions

Using a value of information framework to assess the value of conducting further research in the field of crime prevention proved to be feasible. The results were meaningful and can be interpreted according to health care evaluation studies. This analysis can be helpful in justifying additional research funds to further inform the reimbursement decision in regard to interventions for juvenile delinquents.

Cyprus in crisis: Recent changes in the pharmaceutical market and options for further reforms without sacrificing access to or quality of treatment

The pharmaceutical market in Cyprus has been characterised by high volume and a steep increase in per-capita expenditure over the past decade. Most importantly, the market is fragmented due to the absence of universal health insurance, and the uninsured have to rely exclusively on the private market. The objective of this study is to examine the weaknesses of the Cypriot pharmaceutical market before the financial crisis; to discuss the measures recently introduced after recommendations by the Troika; and to propose interventions that can improve access to pharmaceuticals and efficiency without compromising health outcomes. Apart from the introduction of new pharmaceutical policies, we also recommend the swift implementation of universal health insurance.

Patient access schemes in Asia-pacific markets: current experience and future potential

Objectives

Patient access (or risk-sharing) schemes are alternative market access agreements between healthcare payers and medical product manufacturers for conditional coverage of promising health technologies. This study aims to identify and characterize patient access schemes to date in the Asia-Pacific region.

Methods

We reviewed the literature on patient access schemes over the last two decades using publicly available databases, Internet, and grey literature searches. We extracted key features of each scheme identified, including the drug, clinical indication, stakeholders involved, and details of the scheme. We categorized schemes according to a previously published taxonomy of scheme types and by country.

Results

We identified 3 schemes in South Korea, 5 in New Zealand, and 98 in Australia. Most (97.2%; n = 103) schemes focused on pharmaceuticals, few on medical technologies. More than half of the schemes related to treatments for cancer and inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. The majority (77.4%; n =82) involved pricing arrangements. Evidence generation schemes were rarely used. About half (41.8%; n = 41) of schemes in Australia were hybrid by nature, consisting of pricing arrangements with a conditional treatment continuation component.

Conclusions

Australia has the most experience with patient access schemes and its experience may provide useful insights for other Asia-Pacific countries. The main targets are pharmaceuticals likely to have high budget impact (due to high per-patient costs and/or large volumes of use), and pharmaceuticals that may be adopted more widely than indicated. With the proliferation of high-cost medicines, the use of schemes may increase to address rising cost pressures, consumer demands, and uncertainties, while attempting to provide patient access to innovative care within finite budgets. Future research is warranted to evaluate the performance of patient access schemes.

Uncertainties in real-world decisions on medical technologies

Patients, clinicians, payers and policy makers face substantial uncertainties in their respective healthcare decisions as they attempt to achieve maximum value, or the greatest level of benefit possible at a given cost. Uncertainties largely come from incomplete information at the time that decisions must be made. This is true in all areas of medicine because evidence from clinical trials is often incongruent with real-world patient care. This article highlights key uncertainties around the (comparative) benefits and harms of medical technologies. Initiatives and strategies such as comparative effectiveness research and coverage with evidence development may help to generate reliable and relevant evidence for decisions on coverage and treatment. These efforts could result in better decisions that improve patient outcomes and better use of scarce medical resources.

Value-engineered translation for regenerative medicine: meeting the needs of health systems

Despite high expectations of economic returns, large investments in regenerative medicine technology have yet to materialize, partly due to a lack of proven business and investment models, regulatory hurdles, and a greater focus on cost-effectiveness for reimbursement decisions by payors. Adoption of new economic modeling methods will better link investment decisions to value-based criteria of health systems.

Pricing and reimbursement frameworks in Central Eastern Europe: a decision tool to support choices

AIM

Given limited financial resources in the Central Eastern European (CEE) region, challenges in obtaining access to innovative medical technologies are formidable. The objective of this research was to develop a decision tree that supports decision makers and drug manufacturers from CEE region in their search for optimal innovative pricing and reimbursement scheme (IPRSs).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to search for published IPRSs, and then ten experts from the CEE region were interviewed to ascertain their opinions on these schemes.

RESULTS

In total, 33 articles representing 46 unique IPRSs were analyzed. Based on our literature review and subsequent expert input, key decision nodes and branches of the decision tree were developed.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that outcome-based schemes are better suited to deal with uncertainties surrounding cost effectiveness, while non-outcome-based schemes are more appropriate for pricing and budget impact challenges.

Adaptive approaches to licensing, health technology assessment, and introduction of drugs and devices

BACKGROUND

Adaptive approaches to the introduction of drugs and medical devices involve the use of an evolving evidence base rather than conventional single-point-in-time evaluations as a proposed means to promote patient access to innovation, reduce clinical uncertainty, ensure effectiveness, and improve the health technology development process.

METHODS

This report summarizes a Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum discussion, drawing on presentations from invited experts, discussions among attendees about real-world case examples, and background paper.

RESULTS

For adaptive approaches to be understood, accepted, and implemented, the Forum identified several key issues that must be addressed. These include the need to define the goals of and to set priorities for adaptive approaches; to examine evidence collection approaches; to clarify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders; to understand the implications of adaptive approaches on current legal and ethical standards; to determine costs of such approaches and how they will be met; and to identify differences in applying adaptive approaches to drugs versus medical devices. The Forum also explored the different implications of adaptive approaches for various stakeholders, including patients, regulators, HTA/coverage bodies, health systems, clinicians, and industry.

CONCLUSIONS

A key outcome of the meeting was a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges adaptive approaches present. Furthermore, the Forum brought to light the critical importance of recognizing and including a full range of stakeholders as contributors to a shared decision-making model implicit in adaptive pathways in future discussions on, and implementation of, adaptive approaches.

Sharing risk between payer and provider by leasing health technologies: an affordable and effective reimbursement strategy for innovative technologies?

The challenge of implementing high-cost innovative technologies in health care systems operating under significant budgetary pressure has led to a radical shift in the health technology reimbursement landscape. New reimbursement strategies attempt to reduce the risk of making the wrong decision, that is, paying for a technology that is not good value for the health care system, while promoting the adoption of innovative technologies into clinical practice. The remaining risk, however, is not shared between the manufacturer and the health care payer at the individual purchase level; it continues to be passed from the manufacturer to the payer at the time of purchase. In this article, we propose a health technology payment strategy-technology leasing reimbursement scheme-that allows the sharing of risk between the manufacturer and the payer: the replacing of up-front payments with a stream of payments spread over the expected duration of benefit from the technology, subject to the technology delivering the claimed health benefit. Using trastuzumab (Herceptin) in early breast cancer as an exemplar technology, we show how a technology leasing reimbursement scheme not only reduces the total budgetary impact of the innovative technology but also truly shares risk between the manufacturer and the health care system, while reducing the value of further research and thus promoting the rapid adoption of innovative technologies into clinical practice.

Current status and trends in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements between healthcare payers and medical product manufacturers

Our objective was to identify and characterize publicly available cases and related trends for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs). We performed a review of PBRSAs over the past 20 years (1993-2013) using available databases and reports from colleagues and healthcare experts. These were categorized according to a previously published taxonomy of scheme types and assessed in terms of the underlying product and market attributes for each scheme. Macro-level trends were identified related to the timing of scheme adoption, countries involved, types of arrangements, and product and market factors. Our search yielded 148 arrangements. From this set, 65 arrangements included a coverage with an evidence development component, 20 included a conditional treatment continuation component, 54 included a performance-linked reimbursement component, and 42 included a financial utilization component. Each type of scheme addresses fundamental uncertainties that exist when products enter the market. The pace of adoption appears to be slowing, but new countries continue to implement PBRSAs. Over this 20-year period, there has been a consistent movement toward arrangements that minimize administrative burden. In conclusion, the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be slowing but still has traction in many health systems. These remain a viable coverage and reimbursement mechanism for a wide range of medical products. The long-term viability and growth of these arrangements will rest in the ability of the parties to develop mutually beneficial arrangements that entail minimal administrative burden in their development and implementation.

Value of information analysis in healthcare: a review of principles and applications

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations are increasingly utilized to inform decisions in healthcare; however, decisions remain uncertain when they are not based on adequate evidence. Value of information (VOI) analysis has been proposed as a systematic approach to measure decision uncertainty and assess whether there is sufficient evidence to support new technologies.

SCOPE

The objective of this paper is to review the principles and applications of VOI analysis in healthcare. Relevant databases were systematically searched to identify VOI articles. The findings from the selected articles were summarized and narratively presented.

FINDINGS

Various VOI methods have been developed and applied to inform decision-making, optimally designing research studies and setting research priorities. However, the application of this approach in healthcare remains limited due to technical and policy challenges.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to create more awareness about VOI analysis, simplify its current methods, and align them with the needs of decision-making organizations.

Routine real-time cost-effectiveness monitoring of a web-based depression intervention: a risk-sharing proposal

Background

A new health care technology must be cost-effective in order to be adopted. If evidence regarding cost-effectiveness is uncertain, then the decision maker faces two choices: (1) adopt the technology and run the risk that it is less effective in actual practice, or (2) reject the technology and risk that potential health is forgone. A new depression eHealth service was found to be cost-effective in a previously published study. The results, however, were unreliable because it was based on a pilot clinical trial. A conservative decision maker would normally require stronger evidence for the intervention to be implemented.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate how to facilitate service implementation by shifting the burden of risk due to uncertainty to the service provider and ensure that the intervention remains cost-effective during routine use.

Methods

We propose a risk-sharing scheme, where the service cost depends on the actual effectiveness of the service in real-life setting. Routine efficacy data can be used as the input to the cost-effectiveness model, which employs a mapping function to translate a depression specific score into quality-adjusted life-years. The latter is the denominator in the cost-effectiveness ratio calculation, required by the health care decision maker. The output of the model is a “value graph”, showing intervention value as a function of its observed (future) efficacy, using the €30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold.

Results

We found that the eHealth service should improve the patient’s outcome by at least 11.9 points on the Beck Depression Inventory scale in order for the cost-effectiveness ratio to remain below the €30,000/QALY threshold. The value of a single point improvement was found to be between €200 and €700, depending on depression severity at treatment start. Value of the eHealth service, based on the current efficacy estimates, is €1900, which is significantly above its estimated cost (€200).

Conclusions

The eHealth depression service is particularly suited to routine monitoring, since data can be gathered through the Internet within the service communication channels. This enables real-time cost-effectiveness evaluation and allows a value-based price to be established. We propose a novel pricing scheme where the price is set to a point in the interval between cost and value, which provides an economic surplus to both the payer and the provider. Such a business model will assure that a portion of the surplus is retained by the payer and not completely appropriated by the private provider. If the eHealth service were to turn out less effective than originally anticipated, then the price would be lowered in order to achieve the cost-effectiveness threshold and this risk of financial loss would be borne by the provider.

Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries

Background

National payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches – called managed entry agreements (MEAs) – to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe.

Methods

To identify and describe MEAs, national health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions on OMPs across seven European countries were reviewed and their main characteristics extracted. To fill data gaps and validate the accuracy of the extraction, collaboration was sought from national payers. To classify MEAs, a bespoke taxonomy was implemented. Identified MEAs were analysed and compared by focusing on five key themes, namely by describing the MEAs in relation to: drug targets and therapeutic classes, geographical spread, type of MEA applied, declared rationale for setting-up of MEAs, and evolution over time.

Results

42 MEAs for 26 OMPs, implemented between 2006 and 2012 and representing a variety of MEA designs, were identified. Italy was the country with the highest number of schemes (n=15), followed by the Netherlands (n=10), England and Wales (n=8), Sweden (n=5) and Belgium (n=4). No MEA was identified for France and Germany due to data unavailability. Antineoplastic agents were the primary targets of MEAs. 55% of the identified MEAs were performance-based risk-sharing arrangements; the other 45% were financial-based. Nine of these 26 OMPs were subject to MEAs in two or three different countries, resulting in 24 MEAs. 60% of identified MEAs focused on conditions whose prevalence is less than 1 per 10,000.

Conclusions

This study confirmed that a variety of MEAs were increasingly used by European payers to manage aspects of uncertainty associated with the introduction of OMPs in the healthcare system, and which may be of a clinical, utilisation, or budgetary nature. It remains unclear whether differences in the use of MEAs reflect differences in how ‘uncertainty’ and ‘value’ are perceived across healthcare systems.

Economic evaluations of implemented vaccination programmes: key methodological challenges in retrospective analyses

Post-implementation evaluation should play an important role in assessing the success of public health programmes; however, the value for money achieved by vaccine programmes after introduction has received relatively little attention to date. In this article we explore the methodological challenges in these analyses and offer direction for future evaluations in the area. We identify alternative approaches to addressing these challenges, which include the estimation of disease changes attributable to vaccination efforts, the hypothetical no vaccination comparator scenario and the full benefit achieved by implemented vaccination programmes. We also outline other important considerations such as the evolution of prices over time. Further work needs to be done to explore these issues and to determine how the application of different approaches may impact on the results of evaluations in various circumstances. As retrospective analyses are likely to become more frequent and influential, it is important that both the benefits and the limitations of post-implementation evaluations are recognised and understood. We argue that it would be useful to establish a methodological framework to provide standards and guidance on how to undertake such analyses in the future.

Strategies to improve clinical research in surgery through international collaboration

More than 235 million patients undergo surgery every year worldwide, but less than 1% are enrolled in surgical clinical trials--few of which are international collaborations. Several levels of action are needed to improve this situation. International research collaborations in surgery between developed and developing countries could encourage capacity building and quality improvement, and mutually enhance care for patients with surgical disorders. Low-income and middle-income countries increasingly report much the same range of surgical diseases as do high-income countries (eg, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and the surgical sequelae of metabolic syndrome); collaboration is therefore of mutual interest. Large multinational trials that cross cultures and levels of socioeconomic development might have faster results and wider applicability than do single-country trials. Surgeons educated in research methods, and aided by research networks and trial centres, are needed to foster these international collaborations. Barriers to collaboration could be overcome by adoption of global strategies for regulation, health insurance, ethical approval, and indemnity coverage for doctors.

Navigating time and uncertainty in health technology appraisal: would a map help?

Healthcare systems are increasingly under pressure to provide funding for innovative technologies. These technologies tend to be characterized by their potential to make valued contributions to patient health in areas of relative unmet need, and have high acquisition costs and uncertainty within the evidence base on their actual impact on health. Decision makers are increasingly interested in linking reimbursement strategies to the degree of uncertainty in the evidence base and, as a result, reimbursement for innovative technologies is frequently linked to some form of patient access or risk-sharing scheme. As the dominant methods of economic evaluation report final outcomes only at the time horizon of the analysis, they present only aggregated information. This omits much of the information available on how net benefit is distributed within the time horizon. In this article, we introduce the Net Benefit Probability Map (NBPM), which maps net health benefit versus time to identify how certain decision makers can be about the benefit of technologies at multiple time points. Using an illustrative example, we show how the NBPM can inform decision makers about how long it will take for innovative technologies to 'pay off', how methodological choices on discount rates affect results and how alternative payment mechanisms can reduce the risk for decision makers facing innovative technologies.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force

There is a significant and growing interest among both payers and producers of medical products for agreements that involve a "pay-for-performance" or "risk-sharing" element. These payment schemes-called "performance-based risk-sharing arrangements" (PBRSAs)-involve a plan by which the performance of the product is tracked in a defined patient population over a specified period of time and the amount or level of reimbursement is based on the health and cost outcomes achieved. There has always been considerable uncertainty at product launch about the ultimate real-world clinical and economic performance of new products, but this appears to have increased in recent years. PBRSAs represent one mechanism for reducing this uncertainty through greater investment in evidence collection while a technology is used within a health care system. The objective of this Task Force report was to set out the standards that should be applied to "good practices"-both research and operational-in the use of a PBRSA, encompassing questions around the desirability, design, implementation, and evaluation of such an arrangement. This report provides practical recommendations for the development and application of state-of-the-art methods to be used when considering, using, or reviewing PBRSAs. Key findings and recommendations include the following. Additional evidence collection is costly, and there are numerous barriers to establishing viable and cost-effective PBRSAs: negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation costs can be substantial. For good research practice in PBRSAs, it is critical to match the appropriate study and research design to the uncertainties being addressed. Good governance processes are also essential. The information generated as part of PBRSAs has public good aspects, bringing ethical and professional obligations, which need to be considered from a policy perspective. The societal desirability of a particular PBRSA is fundamentally an issue as to whether the cost of additional data collection is justified by the benefits of improved resource allocation decisions afforded by the additional evidence generated and the accompanying reduction in uncertainty. The ex post evaluation of a PBRSA should, however, be a multidimensional exercise that assesses many aspects, including not only the impact on long-term cost-effectiveness and whether appropriate evidence was generated but also process indicators, such as whether and how the evidence was used in coverage or reimbursement decisions, whether budget and time were appropriate, and whether the governance arrangements worked well. There is an important gap in the literature of structured ex post evaluation of PBRSAs. As an innovation in and of themselves, PBRSAs should also be evaluated from a long-run societal perspective in terms of their impact on dynamic efficiency (eliciting the optimal amount of innovation).

The use of risk sharing tools for post adoption surveillance of a non pharmacological technology in routine practice: results after one year

BACKGROUND

To report results obtained by combining risk sharing tools with post-adoption surveillance mechanisms in order to control quality of care and implement a value-based reimbursement scheme for Neuro-reflexotherapy (NRT), a non-pharmacological treatment proven effective for neck pain (NP), thoracic pain (TP) and low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Pre-post prospective cohort study in routine clinical practice, carried out in primary care centers in the Spanish National Health Service in the Balearic Islands (Ib-Salut). Eight-hundred and seventy-one subacute and chronic NP, TP and LBP patients treated in Ib-Salut, who underwent NRT during 2011. A shared risk contract (SRC) was developed, where payments for NRT were linked to results on patients' clinical evolution, reduction in medication and proportion of patients undergoing spinal surgery. Main outcome measures were local pain (NP, TP or LBP), referred pain, LBP-related disability and NP-related disability, measured using previously validated instruments at referral and 3 months later, use of medication assessed at referral and discharge, and rates of spinal surgery prescription after undergoing NRT.

RESULTS

Median improvements at discharge corresponded to 57.1% of baseline value for local pain, 75.0% for referred pain, 53.8% for LBP-related disability and 45.0% for NP-related disability. Patients taking medication at discharge represented 29.0% of those taking it at referral. The proportion of patients in whom spinal surgery was prescribed after undergoing NRT was 0%. These results were consistent with those from previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and studies in routine practice, and complied with the standards set in the SRC.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible and effective to enhance post adoption surveillance methods with risk sharing tools to improve quality control and support value-based reimbursement decisions for NRT. The feasibility of generalising this approach to other settings and to other non-pharmacological treatments should be explored.

[HTA-Perspective: Challenges in the early assessment of new oncological drugs]

Oncologic drug therapies have gained wide attention in the context of health policy priority setting for serious and socially significant diseases with high human and monetary costs. Due to uncertainties and scepticism about the actual therapeutic importance of newly approved oncology products, an early assessment programme was already established in Austria in 2007. The assessment of new oncology products is thereby faced with special challenges, since study populations are frequently not representative or the study design is laid out in such a manner that a definitive assessment of patient-relevant endpoints is not possible (cross-overs after interim assessments, surrogate parameters as primary endpoints, uncontrolled studies or those with unrealistic comparators, invalidated post-hoc identified biomarkers). On account of these major uncertainties, even the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is already contemplating multi-stage, "adaptive" approvals, and national reimbursement institutions are increasingly working with outcome-oriented, conditional reimbursement. (As supplied by publisher).