A case study of ex ante, value-based price and reimbursement decision-making: TLV and rimonabant in Sweden

Using an experiment among clinical experts to determine the cost and clinical impact of rapid whole exome sequencing in acute pediatric settings

Objective

Evaluate the cost and clinical impacts of rapid whole-exome sequencing (rWES) for managing pediatric patients with unknown etiologies of critical illnesses through an expert elicitation experiment.

Method

Physicians in the intervention group (n = 10) could order rWES to complete three real-world case studies, while physicians in the control group (n = 8) could not. Costs and health outcomes between and within groups were compared.

Results

The cost incurred in the intervention group was consistently higher than the control by 60,000-70,000 THB. Fewer other investigation costs were incurred when rWES could provide a diagnosis. Less cost was incurred when an rWES that could lead to a change in management was ordered earlier. Diagnostic accuracy and the quality of non-pharmaceutical interventions were superior when rWES was available.

Conclusion

In acute pediatric settings, rWES offered clinical benefits at the average cost of 60,000-70,000 THB. Whether this test is cost-effective warrants further investigations. Several challenges, including cost and ethical concerns for assessing high-cost technology for rare diseases in resource-limited settings, were potentially overcome by our study design using expert elicitation methods.

The Challenges of Outcomes-Based Contract Implementation for Medicines in Europe

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to outline the challenges of implementing outcomes-based contracts (OBCs) in Europe.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted, building on the searches of a previous systematic review and updating them for December 2017 until May 2021. The combined results were screened, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. All identified studies published in the English language that described specific OBC schemes for medicines in European countries were included. Insights into the challenges of OBCs were extracted and analysed to develop a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Ten articles from the previous systematic review matched our inclusion criteria, along with 14 articles from electronic searches. Analysis of these 24 articles and classification of the challenges revealed that there are multiple barriers that must be overcome if OBCs that benefit all stakeholders are going to be adopted widely across Europe. These challenges were grouped according to five key themes: negotiation framework; outcomes; data; administration and implementation; and laws and regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

If the promise of OBCs is to be fully realised in Europe, there remain major challenges that need to be overcome by all stakeholders working in partnership. The overlapping and interconnected nature of these challenges highlights the complexity of OBC arrangements.

The Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in People with Type 1 Diabetes: a Health Economic Analysis in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

Swedish National Diabetes Registry data show a correlation of improved glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with increased use of diabetes technologies over the past 25 years. However, novel technologies are often associated with a high initial outlay. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) MiniMed 780G system versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) plus self-injection of multiple daily insulin (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in people with T1D in Sweden.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0). Clinical data, including changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and hypoglycemia rates, were sourced from observational studies and a randomized crossover trial. Modeled patients were assumed to receive the treatments for their lifetimes, with HbA1c kept constant following the application of treatment effects. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective and expressed in Swedish krona (SEK). Utilities and days off work estimates were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

The MiniMed 780G system was associated with an improvement in life expectancy of 0.16 years and an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.95 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus isCGM plus MDI or CSII. These clinical benefits were due to a reduced incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Combined costs were estimated to be SEK 727,408 (EUR 72,741) higher with MiniMed 780G, with treatment costs partially offset by direct cost savings from the avoidance of diabetes-related complications and indirect cost savings from the avoidance of lost workplace productivity. The MiniMed 780G system was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SEK 373,700 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK 500,000 per QALY gained, the MiniMed 780G system was projected to be cost-effective versus isCGM plus MDI or CSII for the treatment of T1D in Sweden.

Value-based drug price schemes: a welfare analysis

Objectives

The market for innovative drugs is characterized by high levels of regulation, whose impact on the market is not neutral. On the one hand, strict regulation may in fact adversely affect incentives to develop new and better products; on the other hand, high prices may drive an unsustainable increase in healthcare costs. This trade-off is particularly important in Europe, where about 75% of drugs costs are financed by the public sector.

Methods

We develop a simple model that allows to compare the impact of different listing and pricing strategies on the social value of innovative drugs, the consumer surplus and the expected profit of the industry.

Key findings

Uncertainty in the expected price, as well as other forms of access regulation, may lead to a fairer division of the social value between patients and the industry, at the cost of leaving some of the potential value of the drug unexploited.

Conclusions

The regulator may improve value for money if it is prepared either to restrict access to the drug or to reduce the expected price. In both cases, the number of groups of patients treated may be different from the social optimum.

The burden of poor glycaemic control in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in Sweden: A health economic modelling analysis based on nationwide data

AIM

To evaluate the economic and clinical burden associated with poor glycaemic control in Sweden, in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating first-line glucose-lowering therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Population data were obtained from Swedish national registers. Immediate glycaemic control was compared with delays in achieving control of 1 and 3 years, with outcomes projected over 3, 10 and 50 years in the validated IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Glycaemic control was defined as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) targets of 52, 48 and 42 mmol/mol, as recommended in Swedish guidelines, according to age and disease duration. Costs (expressed in 2019 Swedish krona [SEK]) were accounted from a Swedish societal perspective.

RESULTS

Immediate glycaemic control was associated with population-level cost savings of up to SEK 279 million and SEK 673 million versus delays of 1 and 3 years, respectively, as well as small population-level life expectancy benefits of up to 1305 and 2590 life years gained. Reduced levels of burden were a result of lower incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in people with T2D initiating first-line glucose-lowering therapy, the economic burden of poor glycaemic control in Sweden is substantial, but could be reduced by early and effective treatment to achieve glycaemic targets.

Application of Managed Entry Agreements for Innovative Therapies in Different Settings and Combinations: A Feasibility Analysis

The reimbursement of expensive, innovative therapies poses a challenge to healthcare systems. This study investigated the feasibility of managed entry agreements (MEAs) for innovative therapies in different settings and combinations. First, a systematic literature review included studies describing used or conceptual agreements between payers and manufacturers (i.e., MEAs). Identical and similar MEAs were clustered and data were extracted on their benefits and limitations. A feasibility assessment was performed for each individual MEA based on how it could be applied (financial/outcome-based), on what level (individual patients/target population), in which payment setting (centralized pricing and reimbursement authority yes/no), for what type of therapies (one-time/chronic), within what payment structures, and whether combinations with other MEAs were feasible. The literature search ultimately included 82 papers describing 117 MEAs. After clustering, 15 unique MEAs remained, each describing one or multiple similar agreements. Four of those entailed payment structures, while eleven entailed agreements between payers and manufacturers regarding price, usage, and/or evidence generation. The feasibility assessment indicated that most agreements could be applied throughout the different settings that were assessed and could be applied in different payment structures and in combination with multiple other agreements. The potential to combine multiple agreements leads to a multitude of different reimbursement mechanisms that may manage the price, usage, payment structure, and additional conditions for an innovative therapy. This overview of the feasibility of combinations of MEAs can help decision-makers construct a reimbursement mechanism most suited to their preferences, the type of therapy under evaluation, and the applicable healthcare system.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus from a Swedish 1-year and long-term perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ReFLeCT study demonstrated that switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins was associated with reductions in glycated hemoglobin and hypoglycemic events in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and reductions in insulin doses in T1D. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the short- and long-term cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec in Sweden.

METHODS

Short-term outcomes were evaluated over 1 year in a Microsoft Excel model, while long-term outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the ReFLeCT study. Costs (in 2018 Swedish krona [SEK]) encompassed direct medical expenditure and indirect costs from loss of workplace productivity. In the long-term analyses, patients were assumed to receive insulin degludec or continue prior insulin therapy (primarily insulin glargine U100) for 5 years, before all patients intensified to once-daily degludec and mealtime aspart.

RESULTS

Switching to insulin degludec was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1 year, and 0.16 and 0.08 QALYs over patient lifetimes, in T1D and T2D. Combined costs in T1D and T2D were estimated to be SEK 1,249 lower and SEK 1,181 higher over the short-term, and SEK 157,258 and SEK 2,114 lower over the long-term. Benefits were due to lower insulin doses in T1D, reduced rates of hypoglycemia, and lower incidences of diabetes-related complications. Insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SEK 64,298 per QALY gained for T2D over 1 year and considered dominant for T1D and T2D in all other comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec was projected to be cost-effective or dominant versus other basal insulins for the treatment of T1D and T2D in Sweden.

ICER Value Framework 2020 Update: Recommendations on the Aggregation of Benefits and Contextual Considerations

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States recently published a 2020 update to its value assessment framework. We are commenting on the method by which the benefits of health interventions are integrated, relating to contextual considerations and other factors relevant to an intervention's value. We start by discussing the theoretical foundations of decision analysis and its extension to multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Then we provide a detailed, evidence-based response to some of the claims made by ICER with regard to the use of MCDA methods and stakeholder engagement. Finally, we provide a number of recommendations on the use of quantitative decision analysis and decision conferencing that could be of relevance to the ICER methodology. Overall, we agree that some of the proposed changes by ICER are moving in the right direction toward improving transparency in the value assessment process, but these changes are probably inadequate. We advocate that more serious attention should be paid to the use of quantitative decision analysis together with decision conferencing for the construction of value preferences via group processes for the integration of an intervention's various benefit components.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the MiniMed 670G Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion for Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems combine continuous glucose monitoring with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) to continuously self-adjust basal insulin delivery. Relative to CSII, HCL improves glycemic control and reduces the risk of hypoglycemia but has higher acquisition costs. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed™ 670G HCL system versus CSII in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Sweden.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis, from a societal perspective, was performed over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical data were sourced from a study comparing the MiniMed 670G system with CSII in people with T1D. Cost data, expressed in 2018 Swedish krona (SEK), were obtained from Swedish reference prices and published literature.

RESULTS

The MiniMed 670G system was associated with a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 1.90 but higher overall costs versus CSII, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 164,236 per QALY gained. Use of the HCL system resulted in a lower cumulative incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher HCL system acquisition costs were partially offset by reduced complication costs and productivity losses. In people with T1D poorly controlled at baseline, the MiniMed 670G system was associated with 2.25 incremental QALYs versus CSII, yielding an ICER of SEK 15,830 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The MiniMed 670G system was associated with clinical benefits and quality-of-life improvements in people with T1D relative to CSII. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK 300,000 per QALY gained, this HCL system likely represents a cost-effective treatment option for people with T1D in Sweden.

Multi-indication and Combination Pricing and Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals: Opportunities for Improved Health Care through Faster Uptake of New Innovations

Many pharmaceuticals are effective in multiple indications and the degree of effectiveness may differ. A product-based pricing and reimbursement system with a single price per product is insufficient to reflect the variable values between different indications. The objective of this article is to present examples of actual pricing and reimbursement decisions using current value-based pricing in Sweden and to discuss their implications and possible solutions. The value of several cancer drugs was estimated for various indications based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 million SEK (EUR 104,000) per QALY gained. For some drugs, the estimated value was higher than the drug acquisition cost in several indications, whilst in others, the estimated value was lower than the drug acquisition cost. Drugs used in combination present a special case. If a drug prolongs survival and consequently also a continued use of the anchor drug, the combination use may not be cost effective even at a zero price. In a product-based pricing and reimbursement system, patients may not get access to drugs or access may be delayed and manufacturers may be discouraged to invest in future indications. To overcome these issues, there are several approaches to link price and value. One approach is a "weighted-average" price based on an average of the value across all indications. Another is "multi-indication pricing," which enables price differentiation between indications. However, there are several barriers for applying multi-indication pricing and reimbursement schemes. One barrier is the lack of existing administrative infrastructure to track patients' indications.

Achieving Good Glycemic Control Early After Onset of Diabetes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

Sweden has amongst the highest incidence rates of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Europe. The high incidence and chronic nature of T1D result in high prevalence and economic burden. Improving glycemic control reduces the incidence of microvascular complications, which in turn reduces medical costs. The present study aimed to quantify the reductions in cost and improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy with varying reductions in HbA1c in the T1D population.

METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate a typical Swedish population of patients with T1D experiencing HbA1c reductions from 0.1% to 0.8% (in 0.1% increments) from 7.9% at baseline. Analyses were conducted in simulated cohorts based on data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) and in subgroups by sex, smoking status, and body mass index (BMI), with different sets of quality-of-life utilities included. Generalized least squares (GLS) models were used to test for significant differences between subgroups. Analyses were also performed to investigate the effect of the duration of HbA1c control. Analyses were run over 50 years and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

In the reference case analysis, reducing HbA1c lowered the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy. GLS models identified a significantly larger benefit of reducing HbA1c in women over men, but found no significant differences in the magnitude of quality of life improvements with decreasing HbA1c when segregating by smoking status or BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing HbA1c in a population with T1D would reduce the incidence of microvascular complications, improve life expectancy and quality of life. Larger quality-of-life benefits were observed in younger and female adult patients, but no notable differences were observed in the benefits of glycemic control in smokers versus non-smokers or in patients with low or high BMI.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk Scandinavia AB, Malmö, Sweden.

Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries

BACKGROUND

Although health technology assessment (HTA) systems base their decision making process either on economic evaluations or comparative clinical benefit assessment, a central aim of recent approaches to value measurement, including value based assessment and pricing, points towards the incorporation of supplementary evidence and criteria that capture additional dimensions of value.

OBJECTIVE

To study the practices, processes and policies of value-assessment for new medicines across eight European countries and the role of HTA beyond economic evaluation and clinical benefit assessment.

METHODS

A systematic (peer review and grey) literature review was conducted using an analytical framework examining: (1) 'Responsibilities and structure of HTA agencies'; (2) 'Evidence and evaluation criteria considered in HTAs'; (3) 'Methods and techniques applied in HTAs'; and (4) 'Outcomes and implementation of HTAs'. Study countries were France, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Evidence from the literature was validated and updated through two rounds of feedback involving primary data collection from national experts.

RESULTS

All countries assess similar types of evidence; however, the specific criteria/endpoints used, their level of provision and requirement, and the way they are incorporated (e.g. explicitly vs. implicitly) varies across countries, with their relative importance remaining generally unknown. Incorporation of additional 'social value judgements' (beyond clinical benefit assessment) and economic evaluation could help explain heterogeneity in coverage recommendations and decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More comprehensive and systematic assessment procedures characterised by increased transparency, in terms of selection of evaluation criteria, their importance and intensity of use, could lead to more rational evidence-based decision-making, possibly improving efficiency in resource allocation, while also raising public confidence and fairness.

The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions

CONTEXT

Policy makers and insurance companies decide on coverage of care by both calculating (cost-) effectiveness and assessing the necessity of coverage.

AIM

To investigate argumentations pertaining to necessity used in coverage decisions made by policy makers and insurance companies, as well as those argumentations used by patients, authors, the public and the media.

METHODS

This study is designed as a realist review, adhering to the RAMESES quality standards. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched and 98 articles were included that detailed necessity-based argumentations.

RESULTS

We identified twenty necessity-based argumentation types. Seven are only used to argue in favour of coverage, five solely for arguing against coverage, and eight are used to argue both ways. A positive decision appears to be facilitated when patients or the public set the decision on the agenda. Moreover, half the argumentation types are only used by patients, authors, the public and the media, whereas the other half is also used by policy makers and insurance companies. The latter group is more accepted and used in more different countries.

CONCLUSION

The majority of necessity-based argumentation types is used for either favouring or opposing coverage, and not for both. Patients, authors, the public and the media use a broader repertoire of argumentation types than policy makers and insurance companies.

The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements : Current Debate

The high cost of novel treatments is the major driver of negative or restricted reimbursement decisions by healthcare payers in many countries. Costly drugs can be subject to Market Access Agreements (MAAs), which are financial (Commercial Agreements [CAs]) or outcomes-based (Payment for Performance Agreements [P4Ps] or Coverage with Evidence Development agreements [CEDs]). Outcomes in outcomes-based MAAs are assessed through changes in surrogate endpoints (SEPs) or patient-relevant endpoints (PEPs). In May 2015, we reviewed published and grey literature on MAAs between manufacturers and large, institutionalised payers from all geographical areas, and classified the schemes into CAs, P4Ps and CEDs, as well as by therapeutic area and country. Outcomes-based MAAs were further categorized by the endpoint used. Overall, we identified 143 MAAs, 56 (39.2 %) of which were pure CAs, 53 (37.1 %) were CEDs, and 34 (23.8 %) were P4Ps. Among the CEDs, 49 were PEP CEDs and four were SEP CEDs; of the 34 P4Ps, 29 were SEP P4Ps for 30 drugs, and five were PEP P4Ps for at least six drugs; and among 87 outcomes-based MAAs (CEDs + P4Ps), PEP CEDs were the most common (56.3 %), followed by SEP P4Ps (34.1 %). The high proportion of SEPs used in P4Ps contrasts with the high proportion of PEPs used in CEDs. CEDs employ PEPs and it appears that they are used to reduce uncertainty about a drug's clinical outcomes and/or real-life use, and thus allow payers to align a product's value with price. We argue that P4Ps do not reduce uncertainty about real-life effectiveness and can only constitute an outcome guarantee for payers if they are based on PEPs or validated SEPs.

Opening the gateways to market and adoption of regenerative medicine? The UK case in context

Regenerative medicine is a site for opposing forces of gatekeeping and innovation. This applies both to regulation of market entry and to clinical adoption. Key gateways include the EU's Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation, technology assessment body NICE and commissioning/service contractor National Health Service England. The paper maps recent gatekeeping flexibilities, describing the range of gateways to market and healthcare adoption seen as alternatives to mainstream routes. The initiatives range from exemptions in pharmaceutical and ATMP regulations, through 'adaptive pathways' and 'risk-based' approaches, to special designation for promising innovation, value-based assessment and commissioner developments. Future developments are considered in the UK's 'accelerated access review'. Caution is urged in assessing the impact of these gateway flexibilities and their market and public health implications.

The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product's value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making.

From Value Assessment to Value Cocreation: Informing Clinical Decision-Making with Medical Claims Data

Big data and advances in analytical processes represent an opportunity for the healthcare industry to make better evidence-based decisions on the value generated by various tests, procedures, and interventions. Value-based reimbursement is the process of identifying and compensating healthcare providers based on whether their services improve quality of care without increasing cost of care or maintain quality of care while decreasing costs. In this article, we motivate and illustrate the potential opportunities for payers and providers to collaborate and evaluate the clinical and economic efficacy of different healthcare services. We conduct a case study of a firm that offers advanced biomarker and disease state management services for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic conditions. A value-based analysis that comprised a retrospective case/control cohort design was conducted, and claims data for over 7000 subjects who received these services were compared to a matched control cohort. Study subjects were commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with evidence of CHD, diabetes, or a related condition. Analysis of medical claims data showed a lower proportion of patients who received biomarker testing and disease state management services experienced a MI (p < 0.01) or diabetic complications (p < 0.001). No significant increase in cost of care was found between the two cohorts. Our results illustrate the opportunity healthcare payers such as Medicare and commercial insurance companies have in terms of identifying value-creating healthcare interventions. However, payers and providers also need to pursue system integration efforts to further automate the identification and dissemination of clinically and economically efficacious treatment plans to ensure at-risk patients receive the treatments and interventions that will benefit them the most.

Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-run cost-effectiveness in a Swedish setting for liraglutide compared with sulphonylureas (glimepiride) or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with metformin in monotherapy.

METHODS

The IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes from a societal perspective. Model input data were obtained from two clinical trials, the Swedish National Diabetes Register and the literature. Cost data reflected year 2013 price level. The robustness of results was checked with one-way-sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The cost per QALY gained for liraglutide (1.2 mg) compared to SU (glimepiride 4 mg), both as add-on to metformin, ranged from SEK 226,000 to SEK 255,000 in analyzed patient cohorts. The cost per QALY for liraglutide (1.2 mg) vs sitagliptin (100 mg) as second-line treatment was lower, ranging from SEK 149,000 to SEK 161,000. Costs of preventive treatment were driving costs, but there was also a cost offset from reduced costs of complications of ∼ 20%. Notable cost differences were found for nephropathy, stroke, and heart failure. The predicted life expectancy with liraglutide increased the cost of net consumption for liraglutide.

LIMITATIONS

The analysis was an ex-ante analysis using model input data from clinical trials which may not reflect effectiveness in real-world clinical practice in broader patient populations. This limitation was explored in the sensitivity analysis. The lack of specific data on loss of production due to diabetes complications implied that these costs may be under-estimated.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment strategies with liraglutide 1.2 mg improved the expected quality-of-life and increased costs when compared to SU and to sitagliptin for second-line add-on treatments. The cost per QALY for liraglutide was in the range considered medium by Swedish authorities.

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.

Early evaluation and value-based pricing of regenerative medicine technologies

Since the first pioneering scientists explored the potential of using human cells for therapeutic purposes the branch of regenerative medicine has evolved to become a mature industry. The focus has switched from ‘what can be done‘ to ‘what can be commercialized‘. Timely health economic evaluation supports successful marketing by establishing the value of a product from a healthcare system perspective. This article reports results from a research project on early health economic evaluation in collaboration with developers, clinicians and manufacturers. We present an approach to determine an early value-based price for a new treatment of cartilage defects of the knee from the area of regenerative medicine. Examples of using evaluation results for the purpose of business planning, market entry, preparing the coverage decision and managed entry are discussed.

A new reimbursement system for innovative pharmaceuticals combining value-based and free market pricing

Sweden has experienced a national value-based pricing (VBP) system for innovative outpatient drugs operated by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board - LFN (now called the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits agency - TLV) since 2002. VBP has the character of a monopoly system, leading to reimbursement decisions where usage of new medicines is limited to subgroups and not the population for which the drug is approved. VBP relies on a broad societal perspective, encouraging innovations by signaling to firms that value-adding treatments are demanded. However, the VBP system is operated without a drug budget responsibility. The budget responsibility lies at the regional level, not operating VBP, thus an intrinsic conflict is built into the system. The aim of this article is to suggest a modification to the current reimbursement system in Sweden where payment for pharmaceuticals is split between the regional and national levels. The system is expected to make new innovative pharmaceuticals accessible to a larger number of patients and provide more consumer surplus without reducing the producer surplus. In short, the county councils pay the marginal cost of production while the state pays for the innovation.

Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

Over the past decade, public distrust in unavoidable value-laden decisions on the allocation of resources to new health technologies has grown. In response, healthcare organizations have made considerable efforts to improve their acceptability by increasing transparency in decision-making processes. However, the social value judgments (distributive preferences of the public) embedded in them have yet to be defined. While the need to explicate such judgments has become widely recognized, the most appropriate approach to accomplishing this remains unclear. The aims of this review were to identify factors around which distributive preferences of the public have been sought, create a list of social values proposed or used in current resource allocation decision-making processes for new health technologies, and review approaches to eliciting such values from the general public. Social values proposed or used in making resource allocation decisions for new health technologies were identified through three approaches: (i) a comprehensive review of published, peer-reviewed, empirical studies of public preferences for the distribution of healthcare; (ii) an analysis of non-technical factors or social value statements considered by technology funding decision-making processes in Canada and abroad; and (iii) a review of appeals to funding decisions on grounds in part related to social value judgments. A total of 34 empirical studies, 10 technology funding decision-making processes, and 12 appeals to decisions were identified and reviewed. The key factors/patient characteristics addressed through policy statements and around which distributive preferences of the public have been sought included severity of illness, immediate need, age (and its relationship to lifetime health), health gain (amount and final outcome/health state), personal responsibility for illness, caregiving responsibilities, and number of patients who could benefit (rarity). Empirical studies typically examined the importance of these factors in isolation. Therefore, the extent to which preferences around one factor may be modified in the presence of others is still unclear. Research that seeks to clarify interactions among factors by asking the public to weigh several of them at once is needed to ensure the relevance of elicited preferences to real-world technology funding decisions.

Market Access Agreements for pharmaceuticals in Europe: diversity of approaches and underlying concepts

BACKGROUND

Market Access Agreements (MAA) between pharmaceutical industry and health care payers have been proliferating in Europe in the last years. MAA can be simple discounts from the list price or very sophisticated schemes with inarguably high administrative burden.

DISCUSSION

We distinguished and defined from the health care payer perspective three kinds of MAA: Commercial Agreements (CA), Payment for Performance Agreements (P4P) and Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). Apart from CA, the agreements assumed collection and analysis of real-life health outcomes data, either from a cohort of patients (CED) or on per patient basis (P4P). We argue that while P4P aim at reducing drug cost to payers without a systematic approach to addressing uncertainty about drugs' value, CED were implemented provisionally to reduce payer's uncertainty about value of a medicine within a defined time period.

SUMMARY

We are of opinion that while CA and P4P have a potential to reduce payers' expenditure on costly drugs while maintaining a high list price, CED address initial uncertainty related to assessing the real-life value of new drugs and enable a final HTA recommendation or reimbursement and pricing decisions. Further, we suggest that real cost to health care payers of drugs in CA and P4P should be made publicly available in a systematic manner, to avoid a perverse impact of these MAA types on the international reference pricing system.

Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare centralized reimbursement/coverage decision-making processes for health technologies in 23 European countries, according to: mandate, authority, structure, and policy options; mechanisms for identifying, selecting, and evaluating technologies; clinical and economic evidence expectations; committee composition, procedures, and factors considered; available conditional reimbursement options for promising new technologies; and the manufacturers' roles in the process.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of publicly available information from peer-reviewed literature (using a variety of bibliographic databases) and gray literature (eg, working papers, committee reports, presentations, and government documents) was conducted. Policy experts in each of the 23 countries were also contacted. All information collected was reviewed by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Most European countries have established centralized reimbursement systems for making decisions on health technologies. However, the scope of technologies considered, as well as processes for identifying, selecting, and reviewing them varies. All systems include an assessment of clinical evidence, compiled in accordance with their own guidelines or internationally recognized published ones. In addition, most systems require an economic evaluation. The quality of such information is typically assessed by content and methodological experts. Committees responsible for formulating recommendations or decisions are multidisciplinary. While criteria used by committees appear transparent, how they are operationalized during deliberations remains unclear. Increasingly, reimbursement systems are expressing interest in and/or implementing reimbursement policy options that extend beyond the traditional "yes," "no," or "yes with restrictions" options. Such options typically require greater involvement of manufacturers which, to date, has been limited.

CONCLUSION

Centralized reimbursement systems have become an important policy tool in many European countries. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of transparency around critical elements, such as how multiple factors or criteria are weighed during committee deliberations.

Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different

All healthcare systems routinely make resource allocation decisions that trade off potential health gains to different patient populations. However, when such trade-offs relate to the introduction of new, promising health technologies, perceived 'winners' and 'losers' are more apparent. In recent years, public scrutiny over such decisions has intensified, raising the need to better understand how they are currently made and how they might be improved. The objective of this paper is to critically review and compare current processes for making health technology funding decisions at the regional, state/provincial and national level in 20 countries. A comprehensive search for published, peer-reviewed and grey literature describing actual national, state/provincial and regional/institutional technology decision-making processes was conducted. Information was extracted by two independent reviewers and tabulated to facilitate qualitative comparative analyses. To identify strengths and weaknesses of processes identified, websites of corresponding organizations were searched for commissioned reviews/evaluations, which were subsequently analysed using standard qualitative methods. A total of 21 national, four provincial/state and six regional/institutional-level processes were found. Although information on each one varied, they could be grouped into four sequential categories: (i) identification of the decision problem; (ii) information inputs; (iii) elements of the decision-making process; and (iv) public accountability and decision implementation. While information requirements of all processes appeared substantial and decision-making factors comprehensive, the way in which they were utilized was often unclear, as were approaches used to incorporate social values or equity arguments into decisions. A comprehensive inventory of approaches to implementing the four main components of all technology funding decision-making processes was compiled, from which areas for future work or research aimed at improving the acceptability of decisions were identified. They include the explication of decision criteria and social values underpinning processes.