A comparative analysis of two contrasting European approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND

The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered.

RESULTS

The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Prices and Clinical Benefit of National Price-Negotiated Anticancer Medicines in China

BACKGROUND

High prices of anticancer medicines have increased the economic burden for both patients and health insurance systems. Since 2017, China has implemented national price negotiations for medicines, relying on evidence from health technology assessments. We aim to assess the relation between negotiated price and value of anticancer medicines listed in China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

For all price-negotiated anticancer medicines and corresponding indications listed in the latest NRDL between 2017 and 2020, we collected their clinical outcomes data, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), in supporting trials. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the association between the daily cost and clinical benefit of each indication.

RESULTS

In total, 75 indications of 46 branded anticancer medicines were included for analysis. The median daily costs for the anticancer therapies that had gone through negotiation in 2017-2020 were US$87.6, US$71.8, US$58.9, and US$39.7, respectively. For indications supported by randomized trials, no correlation between daily costs and OS and PFS benefit of the price-negotiated cancer therapies was observed (N = 41, r = -0.05, and N = 49, r = 0.04, respectively). For cancer indications newly listed in NRDL in 2020, the association between their daily cost and OS benefit was -0.78 (N = 4, p = 0.221) and 0.01 (N = 8, p = 0.986) before and after the price negotiation.

CONCLUSION

Though the negotiation policy decreased prices of anticancer medicines in China, no statistically significant correlation was observed between their daily costs and clinical benefits. A more transparent and credible pricing approach needs to be established to promote value-based anticancer medicines and healthcare system efficiency.

The Assessment of the Innovativeness of a New Medicine in Italy

Objectives: Starting from April 2017, the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) has approved new criteria for defining any new medicinal product with an innovative indication. The purpose of the study is to analyze the activity of innovativeness evaluation according to the new approach, to estimate the weight of each criterion considered for innovativeness definition, and to evaluate how the new approach works in terms of consistency and reproducibility. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the final reports evaluating the drug innovativeness assessment published on the AIFA's website between April 2017 and January 2021. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, whether the conditions were respected, or Fisher's exact test was used to explore the association between characteristics of drugs and the innovativeness status and the association between the three criteria. Profiles of the decision process and their relationship with innovativeness response were described. In order to evaluate the weight of each criterion in predicting the innovativeness status, a Classification Tree (CT) algorithm was applied. Results: Overall, of the 109 published drugs reports, 37 (33.9%) were recognized as fully innovative, 29 (26.6%) were considered conditionally innovative, while for 43 (39.4%) reports innovativeness was not recognized. Considering the three criteria of the decision process, the added therapeutic value was the only criterion statistically associated with a drug's degree of innovation (p < 0.001). The therapeutic need and the quality of clinical evidence were statistically associated (p = 0.008) even if only a mild association was observed. The added therapeutic value was the most important variable in predicting the innovativeness status according to the classification tree (CT) model applied, achieving an accuracy of 89.4%. No difference was found between orphans and non-orphan drugs or oncological and non-oncological drugs. Discussion: The added therapeutic value is the most important criterion of the multidimensional approach for the innovativeness status definition of a new medical product. A mild association was found between the therapeutic need and the quality of evidence. Overall, similar decision profiles bring the same evaluation of innovativeness status, indicating a good consistency and reproducibility between decisions.

Coverage and Pricing Recommendations of the French National Health Authority for Innovative Drugs: A Retrospective Analysis From 2014 to 2020

OBJECTIVES

This study provides a retrospective analysis of the recommendations of the French National Health Authority on the reimbursement and pricing of innovative drugs.

METHODS

The analysis includes drugs subjected to both economic and clinical evaluations in France from 2014 to 2020. Ordered logistic and quantile regressions are used to estimate the factors associated with the clinical value (SMR), the clinical added value (ASMR), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of innovative drugs. All variables used in the regression analyses are extracted from the Clinical and Economic Opinions for the 146 observations.

RESULTS

Regression analyses indicate that 2 of the 5 official criteria, the efficacy-adverse events balance of the drug and its function, are significantly associated with the SMR rating. The ASMR is positively associated with the disease severity, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain provided by the drug, and the validation of the ICUR in the Economic Opinion. At the first quartile of the ICUR distribution (approximately €50 000/QALY), higher ICUR levels are observed for drugs with a smaller target population and for drugs claimed as more innovative. Higher ICUR levels are also observed for pediatric drugs and for drugs with no therapeutic alternative at the third quartile of the distribution (approximately €240 000/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Not all official criteria of the SMR are associated with actual ratings obtained. Regarding the ASMR, the results support the idea of a convergence between the 2 independent clinical and economic appraisal processes. Finally, the factors influencing the ICUR level vary across the distribution of ICUR.

Reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in English and Spanish hospitals-The example of isavuconazole

BACKGROUND

Kron et al (Mycoses, 64, 2021, 86) found cost savings for the use of the innovative pharmaceutical isavuconazole in the inpatient setting in Germany (Bismarck-based healthcare system). Little is known about the reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in the inpatient setting of Beveridge-based healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the market access process and reimbursement of isavuconazole, exemplary for innovative pharmaceuticals, in England and Spain.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Market access processes of both countries were described. Focussing on typical patient clusters for isavuconazole treatment, reimbursement data regarding inpatients with (i) allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation or (ii) acute myeloid leukaemia was considered. Data were publicly available and of high topicality (England 2020/2021, Spain 2018). Discounting and a currency conversion to Euro were applied.

RESULTS

This study showed that market access processes of both countries are broadly similar. Further, full reimbursement of isavuconazole as an innovative pharmaceutical may lead to reduction in resource utilisation. Without medication costs, isavuconazole can thus result in cost savings for both patient clusters due to a reduction in length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Expenses for innovative pharmaceuticals may be balanced or even lead to cost savings due to a reduction in length of stay. The latter contributes to a greater patient benefit. For both healthcare system, the analyses highlighted drugs' cost-effectiveness and assessing its added value into reimbursement decisions is highly relevant.

Added Therapeutic Value of Medicinal Products for French and German Health Technology Assessment Organizations: A Systematic Comparison

OBJECTIVES

Determining the price and reimbursement of a new medicine is a national competence within the Member States of the European Union that is carried out by health technology authorities and is based mainly on the added therapeutic value (ATV). The primary objective of this study was to compare the ATVs granted by the French (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS) and the German (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWIG) authorities. The secondary objective was to analyze the reasons for the discrepancies observed.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of all ATVs assigned by HAS and IQWIG for the period 2011 to 2017. ATV assessments were classified as major, considerable, minor, no benefit, or not quantifiable. The concordance between the authorities was evaluated, and a qualitative analysis of highly discordant assessments was performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-one drugs were evaluated by both agencies. The overall percentage of agreement was 50.3%. It was 73.1% for no benefit of ATVs, 37.5% for minor ATVs, 31.2% for considerable ATVs, and 5% for major ATVs. Highly conflicting assessments (n = 35) mainly concerned antineoplastic drugs (n = 14) and anti-infectives (n = 14). The main reasons for inconsistency concerned the following: a different appreciation of the subgroup analysis of efficacy data (n = 15), the appropriateness of comparators (n = 15), the surrogate endpoints (n = 10), methodological differences (n = 8), and the benefit/risk criteria that were used (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

In the context of the common assessment of ATVs promoted by the European Commission, the harmonization between member states regarding the way evaluation criteria are assessed deserves to be addressed.

Assessing the Added Therapeutic Benefit of Ultra-Expensive Drugs

OBJECTIVES

While the United States does not have a method for assessing the added therapeutic benefit of drugs, France, Canada, and Germany do. We examined the added therapeutic benefit of the most expensive drugs prescribed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the United States.

METHODS

We identified ultra-expensive drugs with annual Medicare spending that exceeded $62 794 (United States GDP per capita in 2018) using Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Spending and Utilization Data. We used added therapeutic benefit ratings assessed by health technology assessment agencies in France, Canada, and Germany.

RESULTS

We identified 122 ultra-expensive drugs in 2018. Sixty-five percent of these drugs (n = 79) were assessed by at least one of the countries. Based on these assessments, approximately 75% received a low added therapeutic benefit rating.

CONCLUSIONS

Most ultra-expensive drugs prescribed in the United States and assessed by France, Canada, and Germany provide low added therapeutic benefit. Policy reforms in the United States could use added therapeutic benefit to inform coverage and pricing decisions for ultra-expensive drugs. Similar to Germany, one approach would be to allow the company to set a market price for a limited period of time before requiring a price reduction if the added therapeutic benefit is below a certain threshold. Another approach would be to identify when drug prices are substantially more expensive in the United States and conduct an added therapeutic benefit assessment and price review on these drugs.

Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system

OBJECTIVE

In 2017, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) introduced a standardised process to appraise innovativeness of medicines. Innovative medicines are provided speeder market access and dedicated funds. Innovativeness criteria are: unmet therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method). We investigated the role played by these three criteria on the final decision aimed to understand how the new Italian innovativeness appraisal framework was implemented.

DESIGN

A desk research gathered AIFA's appraisal reports on innovativeness and data analyses were conducted. No patients were directly involved in this study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We scrutinised all 77 appraisal reports available on AIFA's website (2017-2020).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The impact of the three domains on final decision was investigated through a series of univariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among 77 appraisal reports on innovativeness available, 49 (64%) and 28 (36%) were for oncology and non-oncology medicines, respectively. The appraisals were equally distributed among 'fully innovative' (36%), 'conditionally innovative' (30%) and 'not innovative' (34%). Added therapeutic value was the most important driver on innovativeness decision, followed by quality of the evidence. Drugs for rare diseases and with paediatric/mixed indications were appraised 'innovative' by a larger proportion, but no statistical significance was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some limitations, including the moderate number of appraisals, this paper provides an insight into the determinants of innovativeness appraisals for medicines in Italy and the accuracy of the appraisal process. This has important implications in terms of transparency and accountability in the prioritisation process applied to innovative medicines.

Establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug

Background

This paper addresses the question of what a reasonable price for an orphan drug is. The research proposes a way to adjust an established payer/HTA body incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) to take account of differences in patient populations and costs of research and development in order to sustain prices that generate rates of return from investments in developing orphan drugs that are no greater than the industry average.

Methods

We investigated the cost of conducting research for orphan drugs as compared to non-orphan drugs, as well as patient population sizes targeted by orphans and non-orphans. We provided an empirical illustration based on novel drug approvals of orphan and non-orphan drugs of the FDA between 2011 and 2015 (N = 182).

Results

Using, for illustration, the NICE incremental CET (£20 K per QALY) as an anchor and adjusting by R&D costs and expected market revenue, we estimated the adjusted reasonable CET for orphan drugs to be £39.1 K per QALY at the orphan population cut-off and £78.3 K per QALY at the orphan population mid-point. For ultra-orphan drugs the adjusted CET was £937.1 K.

Conclusions

We propose one general method for establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug, based on the proposition that rates of return for investments in developing orphan drugs should not be greater than the industry average. More research is required on data and assumptions, but with the data and assumptions we use, we find that in order to secure such a reasonable price for an orphan drug, the CET for orphans would need to be higher. This could be one approach for establishing the maximum allowable price society should be willing to pay, although decision-makers may still wish to negotiate a lower price, or refuse to pay such a premium over the value-based price in order to treat these groups of patients.

Does the use of health technology assessment have an impact on the utilisation of health care resources? Evidence from two European countries

OBJECTIVES

A centralised approach to health technology assessment (HTA) may facilitate optimal use of HTA resources. A regional approach may increase the chances of local implementation of recommendations. This study aimed to compare assessment procedures in England (centralised HTA approach) with Spain (regional HTA approach) discussing key challenges and opportunities from both approaches.

METHODS

We compared technology assessments of anticancer medicines in the two jurisdictions from 2008 to 2015. To assess the implementation of HTA recommendations, we assessed trends in medicine usage using regression methods. We used IQVIA data, from 2011 to 2016, for a sample of 11 medicines. We used CatSalut data from Catalonia to assess the implementation of local recommendations.

RESULTS

In England, 66 assessments were undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), using a standardised methodology. In Spain, there were 79 reports undertaken by a range of bodies using a shared process and coordinated through the GENESIS collaboration; the assessment methods used varied substantially. Overall, the recommendations in the two jurisdictions were similar. Regression analyses indicate that where there is a positive recommendation by HTA bodies, the usage of the medicine responds most strongly (p < 0.001) in Catalonia (4.892), followed by England (3.120) and Spain (1.693).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that medicine utilisation does respond to the positive recommendations of HTA bodies. However, if HTA capacity is organised primarily regionally, considerable effort may be required in coordination, to ensure consistent and rigorous assessments and adequate implementation of HTA findings.

Do Social Values and Institutional Context Shape the Use of Economic Evaluation in Reimbursement Decisions? An Empirical Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the use of economic evaluation (EE) in healthcare decision making is influenced by the social values and institutional context in a given country.

METHODS

We developed and tested a conceptual framework for the 36 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The countries were divided into two groups based on the extent of their use of EE in drug reimbursement. The key social values were efficiency, equity, and personal responsibility, measured in an international survey. Countries were classified based on their institutional context in terms of their general welfare paradigm/type of healthcare system and the administrative tradition to which they belong. We performed correlation tests and ran path analysis regression models to test our hypotheses.

RESULTS

EE high users included significantly more Beveridge-type systems (50% vs 31%) and fewer Bismarck-type (15% vs 56%). Napoleonic tradition countries seemed to reject personal responsibility in health (r = -0.511, P = .009), whereas Germanic tradition countries embraced it (r = 0.572, P = .003); Anglo-American tradition countries exhibited a significant association with efficiency (r = 0.444, P = .026), whereas Scandinavian tradition countries appeared to reject it as a criterion for rationing in healthcare (r = -0.454, P = .023). No significant direct association was found between social values and use of EE.

CONCLUSION

Our exploratory analysis suggests that institutional context and, indirectly, social values may play a role in shaping the use of EE in healthcare decision making. Because of the differences among countries in terms of institutional context, which may in part be influenced by social values, it is unlikely that there will ever be a single, harmonious approach to the use of EE.

Access to medicines - a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Budgetary constraints and the rising cost of new innovative medicines are the key challenges for access to medicines. Multiple research studies explored diverse dimensions of this topic, however, a thorough and detailed review of existing literature on access to medicines in United Kingdom is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review of literature was to critically review and analyse the literature pertaining to original research on access to medicines issue in the United Kingdom. This review includes two types of studies: (a) UK centric studies (b) studies comparing UK with the other countries.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles published between Jan 2008 and October 12, 2018 was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and specific journals including BMJ, Lancet, Value in Health, Pharmacoeconomics, Pharmacoeconomics Open, Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, Health Policy.

RESULTS

The searches across all databases and journals resulted in 53 relevant articles. The data extracted from the 53 articles generated key themes. These themes included: Access to Medicines, Health technology assessment (HTA), Pricing and Health technology assessment, Risk Sharing Agreements & Stakeholders involvement/views on reimbursement Process. Subthemes were added under the key themes where applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

This review systematically evaluated the current literature and identified variability in access to medicines across countries in UK &EU and across different categories of medicines. Medicine licensing and reimbursement environment is continuously evolving and there are challenges as well as opportunities for learning and collaboration among countries which are at different stages of advancement in their systems.

Was It Worth Introducing Health Economic Evaluation of Innovative Drugs in the French Regulatory Setting? The Case of New Hepatitis C Drugs

OBJECTIVE

This paper constitutes the first attempt to draw lessons from the recent uptake of health economic evaluation of innovative drugs in the French regulatory framework.

STUDY DESIGN

Taking the example of new direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C virus, the paper asks whether and how the cost-effectiveness (CE) opinions issued by the French National Health Authority improve the information available to support the pricing decisions.

METHODS

The analysis compares the assessment of these drugs based on three different sources: CE opinions, clinical opinions, and the published cost-utility analyses (CUA) available in the literature and identified through a systematic review.

RESULTS

The results show that CE opinions bring to the fore three issues prone to impact the incremental cost utility ratio and those were not available to the decision maker through clinical opinions or published CUA: the stage of treatment initiation, the modeling of the disease progression, and the uncertainty around the efficacy rates.

CONCLUSIONS

France has introduced the criterion of the cost per QALY gained in the pricing and regulation of innovative pharmaceuticals since 2013. Our analysis shows that the use of CUA does enhance the information available to the decision makers on the value of the treatments.

Rare diseases under different levels of economic analysis: current activities, challenges and perspectives

Rare diseases imply clinical and economic burden as well as a significant challenge for health systems. One relevant objective of the activities planned within the European Reference Network on Rare and Complex Connective Tissue and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ERN ReCONNET) is to address the economic dimensions of rare diseases to identify, develop and suggest strategies to improve research and patients' access to orphan drugs (ODs) and highly specialised health technologies. This paper presents a preliminary review of the existing policies on rare diseases in the countries of the Network members. It also introduces and discusses the theme of how to perform health economic evaluations of rare diseases and of existing or new treatments for rare diseases. To obtain a preliminary overview aiming at defining the state of the art of rare diseases policies and initiatives in ERN ReCONNET countries, we collected and analysed the rare diseases national plans of all the eight countries of the ERN ReCONNET participants. The preliminary overview that has been performed showed that in all the ERN ReCONNET countries are in place national plans for rare diseases; however, heterogeneity exists in the reimbursement of ODs, direct provision by the healthcare system, involvement of patients' associations in decision making and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

Rare diseases under different levels of economic analysis: current activities, challenges and perspectives

Rare diseases imply clinical and economic burden as well as a significant challenge for health systems. One relevant objective of the activities planned within the European Reference Network on Rare and Complex Connective Tissue and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ERN ReCONNET) is to address the economic dimensions of rare diseases to identify, develop and suggest strategies to improve research and patients' access to orphan drugs (ODs) and highly specialised health technologies. This paper presents a preliminary review of the existing policies on rare diseases in the countries of the Network members. It also introduces and discusses the theme of how to perform health economic evaluations of rare diseases and of existing or new treatments for rare diseases. To obtain a preliminary overview aiming at defining the state of the art of rare diseases policies and initiatives in ERN ReCONNET countries, we collected and analysed the rare diseases national plans of all the eight countries of the ERN ReCONNET participants. The preliminary overview that has been performed showed that in all the ERN ReCONNET countries are in place national plans for rare diseases; however, heterogeneity exists in the reimbursement of ODs, direct provision by the healthcare system, involvement of patients' associations in decision making and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment (HTA) coverage recommendations differ across countries for the same drugs. Unlike previous studies, this study adopts a mixed methods research design to investigate, in a systematic manner, these differences.

METHODS

HTA recommendations for ten orphan drugs appraised in England (NICE), Scotland (SMC), Sweden (TLV) and France (HAS) (N = 35) were compared using a validated methodological framework that breaks down these complex decision processes into stages facilitating their understanding, analysis and comparison, namely: (1) the clinical/cost-effectiveness evidence, (2) its interpretation (e.g. part of the deliberative process) and (3) influence on the final decision. This allowed qualitative and quantitative identification of the criteria driving recommendations and highlighted cross-country differences.

RESULTS

Six out of ten drugs received diverging HTA recommendations. Reasons for cross-country differences included heterogeneity in the evidence appraised, in the interpretation of the same evidence, and in the different ways of dealing with the same uncertainty. These may have been influenced by agency-specific evidentiary, risk and value preferences, or stakeholder input. "Other considerations" (e.g. severity, orphan status) and other decision modulators (e.g. patient access schemes, lower discount rates, restrictions, re-assessments) also rendered uncertainty and cost-effectiveness estimates more acceptable. The different HTA approaches (clinical versus cost-effectiveness) and ways identified of dealing with orphan drug particularities also had implications on the final decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This research contributes to better understanding the drivers of these complex decisions and why countries make different decisions. It also contributed to identifying those factors beyond the standard clinical and cost-effectiveness tools used in HTA, and their role in shaping these decisions.

Pharmaceutical Pricing in Germany: How Is Value Determined within the Scope of AMNOG?

OBJECTIVES

To analyze how value is determined within the scope of the German Pharmaceutical Restructuring Act, which came into effect in 2011.

METHODS

Using data from all pharmaceuticals that had undergone assessment, appraisal, and price negotiations in Germany before June 30, 2016, we applied generalized linear model regression to analyze the impact of added benefit on the difference between negotiated prices and the prices of comparators. Data were extracted from the Federal Joint Committee's appraisals and price databases. We specified added benefit in various ways. In all models, we controlled for additional criteria such as size of patient population, European price levels, and whether the comparators were generic.

RESULTS

Our regression results confirmed the descriptive results, with price premiums reflecting the extent of added benefit as appraised by the Federal Joint Committee. On the substance level, an added benefit was associated with an increase in price premium of 227.2% (P < 0.001) compared with no added benefit. Moreover, we saw increases in price premium of 377.5% (P < 0.001), 90.0% (P < 0.001), and 336.8% (P < 0.001) for added benefits that were "considerable," "minor," and "not quantifiable," respectively. Beneficial effects on mortality were associated with the greatest price premium (624.3%; P < 0.001), followed by such effects on morbidity (174.7%; P < 0.001) and adverse events (93.1%; P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Price premiums, or "value," are driven by health gain, the share of patients benefiting from a pharmaceutical, European price levels, and whether comparators are generic. No statement can be made, however, about the appropriateness of the level of price premiums.

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.

International lessons in new methods for grading and integrating cost effectiveness evidence into clinical practice guidelines

Economic evidence is influential in health technology assessment world-wide. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) can enable economists to include economic information on health care provision. Application of economic evidence in CPGs, and its integration into clinical practice and national decision making is hampered by objections from professions, paucity of economic evidence or lack of policy commitment. The use of state-of-art economic methodologies will improve this. Economic evidence can be graded by 'checklists' to establish the best evidence for decision making given methodological rigor. New economic evaluation checklists, Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses (MCDA) and other decision criteria enable health economists to impact on decision making world-wide. We analyse the methodologies for integrating economic evidence into CPG agencies globally, including the Agency of Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) in the USA, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian political reforms. The Guidelines and Economists Network International (GENI) Board members from Australia, UK, Canada and Denmark presented the findings at the conference of the International Health Economists Association (IHEA) and we report conclusions and developments since. The Consolidated Guidelines for the Reporting of Economic Evaluations (CHEERS) 24 item check list can be used by AHRQ, NHMRC, other CPG and health organisations, in conjunction with the Drummond ten-point check list and a questionnaire that scores that checklist for grading studies, when assessing economic evidence. Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) thresholds, opportunity cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) are crucial issues for decision rules in CEA generally, including end-of-life therapies. Limitations of inter-rater reliability in checklists can be addressed by including more than one assessor to reach a consensus, especially when impacting on treatment decisions. We identify priority areas to generate economic evidence for CPGs by NHMRC, AHRQ, and other agencies. The evidence may cover demand for care issues such as involved time, logistics, innovation price, price sensitivity, substitutes and complements, WTP, absenteeism and presentism. Supply issues may include economies of scale, efficiency changes, and return on investment. Involved equity and efficiency measures may include cost-of-illness, disease burden, quality-of-life, budget impact, cost-effective ratios, net benefits and disparities in access and outcomes. Priority setting remains essential and trade-off decisions between policy criteria can be based on MCDA, both in evidence based clinical medicine and in health planning.

Did It Matter That the Cancer Drugs Fund Was Not NICE? A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) will have spent more than £1 billion between October 2010 and the introduction of reforms to its structure and operations in July 2016. There has been much more debate about the existence of the fund than about how it spent its substantial budget. It is important to undertake a retrospective examination of "where the money went" in light of the substantial reforms that will be introduced in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

We review the means by which the CDF made recent funding decisions for cancer drugs to provide an assessment of the merits of the CDF "model" as a basis for allocation decisions. We assess the extent to which proposed reforms could overcome defects in the original CDF model of prioritization, and lessons for other countries.

METHODS

We provide a narrative commentary on CDF's methods and processes since 2014. We evaluate methods against best practice in cost-effectiveness analysis, and processes against the "accountability for reasonableness" framework. We comment on reforms to the fund.

RESULTS

There are no grounds for concluding that the opportunity costs imposed on cancer patients were well evidenced, or the product of legitimate deliberative processes. We note that some of these issues will be addressed in the next incarnation of the fund, but the rationale for the fund's existence remains unconvincing.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important and timely to debate how cancer drugs appraisal ought to be conducted to confront the consequences of CDF's model of appraisal. We conclude that it did matter that the CDF was not NICE.

Cell-based therapy technology classifications and translational challenges

Cell therapies offer the promise of treating and altering the course of diseases which cannot be addressed adequately by existing pharmaceuticals. Cell therapies are a diverse group across cell types and therapeutic indications and have been an active area of research for many years but are now strongly emerging through translation and towards successful commercial development and patient access. In this article, we present a description of a classification of cell therapies on the basis of their underlying technologies rather than the more commonly used classification by cell type because the regulatory path and manufacturing solutions are often similar within a technology area due to the nature of the methods used. We analyse the progress of new cell therapies towards clinical translation, examine how they are addressing the clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and reimbursement requirements, describe some of the remaining challenges and provide perspectives on how the field may progress for the future.

Meeting the challenge of COPD care delivery in the USA: a multiprovider perspective

The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA continues to grow. Although progress has been made in the the development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and care guidelines, whether patients' quality of life is improved will ultimately depend on the actual implementation of care and an individual patient's access to that care. In this Commission, we summarise expert opinion from key stakeholders-patients, caregivers, and medical professionals, as well as representatives from health systems, insurance companies, and industry-to understand barriers to care delivery and propose potential solutions. Health care in the USA is delivered through a patchwork of provider networks, with a wide variation in access to care depending on a patient's insurance, geographical location, and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, Medicare's complicated coverage and reimbursement structure pose unique challenges for patients with chronic respiratory disease who might need access to several types of services. Throughout this Commission, recurring themes include poor guideline implementation among health-care providers and poor patient access to key treatments such as affordable maintenance drugs and pulmonary rehabilitation. Although much attention has recently been focused on the reduction of hospital readmissions for COPD exacerbations, health systems in the USA struggle to meet these goals, and methods to reduce readmissions have not been proven. There are no easy solutions, but engaging patients and innovative thinkers in the development of solutions is crucial. Financial incentives might be important in raising engagement of providers and health systems. Lowering co-pays for maintenance drugs could result in improved adherence and, ultimately, decreased overall health-care spending. Given the substantial geographical diversity, health systems will need to find their own solutions to improve care coordination and integration, until better data for interventions that are universally effective become available.