Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia

Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally

BACKGROUND

Fostering market entry of novel antibiotics and enhanced use of diagnostics to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing are avenues to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a major public health threat. Pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies may work as AMR 'pull incentives' to support these objectives. This paper studies pull incentives in pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies (e.g., additions to, modifications of, and exemptions from standard policies) for novel antibiotics, diagnostics and health products with a similar profile in 10 study countries. It also explores whether incentives for non-AMR health products could be transferred to AMR health products.

METHODS

This research included a review of policies in 10 G20 countries based on literature and unpublished documents, and the production of country fact sheets that were validated by country experts. Initial research was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2023.

RESULTS

Identified pull incentives in pricing policies include free pricing, higher prices at launch and price increases over time, managed-entry agreements, and waiving or reducing mandatory discounts. Incentives in procurement comprise value-based procurement, pooled procurement and models that delink prices from volumes (subscription-based schemes), whereas incentives in reimbursement include lower evidence requirements for inclusion in the reimbursement scheme, accelerated reimbursement processes, separate budgets that offer add-on funding, and adapted prescribing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

While a few pull incentives have been piloted or implemented for antibiotics in recent years, these mechanisms have been mainly used to incentivize launch of certain non-AMR health products, such as orphan medicines. Given similarities in their product characteristics, transferability of some of these pull incentives appears to be possible; however, it would be essential to conduct impact assessments of these incentives. Trade-offs between incentives to foster market entry and thus potentially improve access and the financial sustainability for payers need to be addressed.

How Do the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Assessments of Comparative Effectiveness Compare With the German Federal Joint Committee's Assessments of Added Benefit? A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee's (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations.

METHODS

We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER's proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA's certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement.

RESULTS

Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA's rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe : Better access to medicines through HTA

INTRODUCTION

Access to medicines is a shared goal across healthcare stakeholders. Since health technology assessment (HTA) informs funding decisions, it shapes access to medicines. Despite its wide implementation, significant access variations due to HTA are observed across Europe. This paper elicited the opinions of European stakeholders on how HTA can be improved to facilitate access.

METHODS

A scoping review identified HTA features that influence access to medicines within markets and areas for improvement, while three access dimensions were identified (availability, affordability, timeliness). Using the Delphi method, we elicited the opinions of European stakeholders to validate the literature findings.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants from 14 countries participated in the Delphi panel. Thirteen HTA features that could be improved to optimise access to medicines in Europe were identified. Of these, 11 recorded a positive impact on at least one of the three access dimensions. HTA features had mostly a positive impact on timeliness and a less clear impact on affordability. 'Early scientific advice' and 'clarity in evidentiary requirements' showed a positive impact on all access dimensions. 'Established ways to deal with uncertainty during HTA' could improve medicines' availability and timeliness, while more 'reliance on real-world evidence' could expedite time to market access.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results reiterate that increased transparency during HTA and the decision-making processes is essential; the use of and reliance on new evidence generation such as real-world evidence can optimise the availability of medicines; and better collaborations between regulatory institutions within and between countries are paramount for better access to medicines.

Shaping a suitable EU HTA dossier template: why the German template is not fit for purpose

From 2025, Health Technology Developers (HTDs) have to submit EU HTA dossiers. The joint clinical assessment (JCA) aims to streamline HTA processes and access to medicinal products across Europe. Currently, German HTA bodies IQWiG and G-BA actively shape the JCA methodology. Here we examine if German HTA dossier requirements are suitable for the JCA. We compare the number of safety endpoint and subgroup analyses in German dossiers with analyses considered in IQWIG's benefit assessment and evaluate if these analyses were considered by the G-BA. We further investigated how the number of analyses was affected by the latest change in the German dossier template. With the current template, HTDs report in median 2.6 times more analyses on adverse events (AE) and 1.1 times more subgroup categories than in the previous template. IQWiG does not consider 33% of AE analyses and 73% of the subgroup categories presented by the HTD under the current template. G-BA considered the same AE as IQWiG in 76% of cases. Subgroups were uncommented by G-BA in most cases, independent of the template (previous: 93%, current 85%) and unconsidered in the conclusion on additional benefit (previous: 77%, current 69%). Thus, changes in the dossier template drastically increased HTD workload, but additional analyses seem unconsidered by the HTA bodies. With a broader scope in JCA, this effect could be amplified. To mitigate duplicative efforts and ensure prompt availability of medicinal products as envisioned by the HTAR, we suggest well-chosen and precise dossier requirements, early consultations, and early HTD engagement.

10 Years of AMNOG: What is the Willingness-to-Pay for Pharmaceuticals in Germany?

OBJECTIVES

The German Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG, 2011) is a two-stage process to regulate the price of new pharmaceuticals in which price negotiations are conducted based on evidence-based medical benefit assessments using data from prior clinical trials. Although the act does not explicitly set a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, the process itself implicitly establishes a WTP for health improvement. We evaluated the implicit WTP for prescription pharmaceuticals post-AMNOG in the German healthcare system from the decision-maker/payer perspective.

METHODS

We extracted data on patient-group-specific annual treatment costs and endpoints from 2011 to 2021 from the dossiers assessed by the German Federal Joint Committee (FJC; Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we calculated a WTP for the indications (I) diabetes, (II) cardiovascular disease, and (III) psoriasis weighted according to patient group size, first from the perspective of the decision-maker (approach A), and second from the perspective of the industry (approach B). To put clinical outcome measures into relation to one another, minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) were derived from the literature and compared.

RESULTS

The annual treatment costs of newly authorized drugs were substantially higher (both pre- and post-negotiation) than that of their comparators (e.g., psoriasis, pre-negotiation: €20,601.59, post-negotiation: €16,763.57; comparators: €5178.00). However, although newly launched drugs were more expensive than their comparators, they brought greater medical benefits and were more aligned with value (r = 0.59, P < 0.001) than older drugs. We estimated WTP to vary widely by indication group [€33,814.08 per 1 percentage point hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reduction for diabetes, €10,970.83 per life year gained for cardiovascular disease, and €663.46 per 1% PASI decrease for psoriasis; approach A]. WTP was converted to MCID thresholds: diabetes: €16,907.04; cardiovascular drugs: no MCID existent to convert; and psoriasis: €33,173.00. WTP remained constant over time for diabetes and cardiovascular drugs but increased for psoriasis drugs.

CONCLUSION

This paper is one of the first to estimate the implicit WTP for prescription pharmaceuticals post-AMNOG and suggests that the WTP may vary between different therapeutic areas. Additionally, making different assumptions (approach A versus approach B) with regard to the assumed effectiveness in indication areas that had been declared as having no additional benefit by the FJC may explain the different perspectives of decision-makers and of the pharmaceutical industry on the value of a pharmaceutical.

Health Technology Assessment-Informed Decision Making by the Federal Joint Committee/Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England: The Role of Budget Impact

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to test (official) evaluation criteria including the potential role of budget impact (BI) on health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes published by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss [GBA]) and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]) in Germany as well as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England.

METHODS

Data were extracted from all publicly available GBA decisions and IQWiG assessments as well as NICE single technology appraisals between January 2011 and June 2018, and information with regard to evaluation criteria used by these agencies was collected. Data were analyzed using logistic regression to estimate the effect of the BI on the HTA outcomes while controlling for criteria used by GBA/IQWiG and NICE.

RESULTS

NICE recommendations are largely driven by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and, if applicable, by end-of-life criteria (P < .01). While IQWiG assessments are significantly affected by the availability of randomized controlled trials and patient-relevant endpoints (P < .01), GBA appraisals primarily focus on endpoints (P < .01). The BI correlated with NICE single technology appraisals (inverted-U relationship, P < .1) and IQWiG recommendations (increasing linear relationship, P < .05), but not with GBA decisions (P > .1). Nevertheless, given that IQWiG assessments seem to be more rigorous than GBA appraisals regarding the consideration of evidence-based evaluation criteria, decisions by GBA might be negatively associated with the BI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results reveal that GBA/IQWiG and NICE follow their official evaluation criteria consistently. After controlling for all significant variables, the BI seems to have an (independent) effect on HTA outcomes as well.

Does health technology assessment compromise access to pharmaceuticals?

In response to rapidly rising pharmaceutical costs, many countries have introduced health technology assessment (HTA) as a 'fourth hurdle'. We evaluated the causal effect of HTA based regulation on access to pharmaceuticals by using the introduction of Germany's HTA system (AMNOG) in 2011. We obtained launch data on pharmaceuticals for 30 European countries from the IQVIA (formerly IMS) database. Using difference-in-difference models, we estimated the effect of AMNOG on launch delay, the ranking order of launch delays, and the availability of pharmaceuticals. We then compared the results for Germany to Austria, Czechia, Italy, Portugal, and the UK. Across all six countries, launch delays decreased from the pre-AMNOG period (25.01 months) to the post-AMNOG period (14.34 months). However, the introduction of AMNOG consistently reduced the magnitude of the decrease in launch delay in Germany compared to the comparator countries (staggered DiD: + 4.31 months, p = 0.05). Our logit results indicate that the availability of pharmaceuticals in Germany increased as a result of AMNOG (staggered logit: + 5.78%, p = 0.009). We provide evidence on the trade-off between regulation and access. This can help policymakers make better-informed decisions to strike the right balance between cost savings achieved through HTA based regulation and access to pharmaceuticals.

Assessment of FDA-Approved Drugs Not Recommended for Use or Reimbursement in Other Countries, 2017-2020

Importance

Drug expenditures in the US are higher than in any other country and are projected to continue increasing, so US health systems may benefit from evaluating international regulatory and reimbursement decision-making of new drugs.

Objective

To evaluate regulatory decisions and health technology assessments (HTAs) in Australia, Canada, and the UK regarding new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 through 2020, as well as to estimate the US cost per patient per year for drugs receiving negative recommendations.

Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, recommendations issued by agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK were collected for new drugs approved by the FDA in 2017 through 2020. All data were current as of May 31, 2022.

Exposures

Authorizations and HTAs in selected countries.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All FDA-approved drugs were matched by active ingredient to decision summary reports published by drug regulators and HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Regulatory approval concordance and reasons for negative recommendations were assessed using descriptive statistics. For drugs not recommended by an international agency, the annual US drug cost per patient was estimated from FDA labeling and wholesale acquisition costs.

Results

The FDA approved 206 new drugs in 2017 through 2020, of which 162 (78.6%) were granted marketing authorization by at least 1 other regulatory agency at a median (IQR) delay of 12.1 (17.7) months following US approval. Conversely, 5 FDA-approved drugs were refused marketing authorization by an international regulatory agency due to unfavorable benefit-to-risk assessments. An additional 42 FDA-approved drugs received negative reimbursement recommendations from HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, or the UK due to uncertainty of clinical benefits or unacceptably high prices. The median (IQR) US cost of the 47 drugs refused authorization or not recommended for reimbursement by an international agency was $115 281 ($166 690) per patient per year. Twenty drugs were for oncology indications, and 36 were approved by the FDA through expedited regulatory pathways or the Orphan Drug Act.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study assessed reasons for which drugs recently approved by the FDA were refused marketing authorization or not recommended for public reimbursement in other countries. Drugs with limited international market presence may require close examination by US health care professionals and health systems.

The reimbursement process in three national healthcare systems: variation in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

In this article, we focus on the reimbursement process, and as an example, characterize the time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab, a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor for treatment of metastatic NSCLC from publicly available websites, in three different healthcare systems: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, and the National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel, all who have publicly funded health systems which include drug coverage. Our study found that there are substantial differences in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for the same conditions in different countries, with NICE and The National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel approving one condition at the same time, Israel approving two conditions earlier than NICE, and PBAC lagging behind for every condition. These differences could be due to the differences in health policy systems and the many factors that affect reimbursement. Comparing the reimbursement process between different countries can highlight the challenges facing their health systems in early adoption of new treatments.

Health technology assessment processes: a North-South comparison of the evaluation and recommendation of health technologies in Canada and Chile

Purpose

Health systems are progressively stressed by health spending, which is partially explained by the increase in the cost of health technologies. Countries have defined processes to prioritize interventions to be covered. This study aims to compare for the first time health technology assessment (HTA) processes in Canada and Chile, to explain the factors driving these decisions.

Design/methodology/approach

This is a health policy analysis comparing HTA processes in Canada and Chile. An analysis of publicly available documents in Canada (for CADTH) and Chile (for the Ministry of Health (MoH)) was carried out. A recognized political science framework (the 3-I framework) was used to explain the similarities and differences in both countries. The comparison of processes was disaggregated into eligibility and evaluation processes.

Findings

CADTH has different programmes for different types of drugs (with two separate expert committees), whereas the MoH has a unified process. Although CADTH’s recommendations have a federal scope, the final coverage is a provincial decision. In Chile, the recommendation has a national scope. In both cases, past recommendations influence the scope of the evaluation. Pharmaceutical companies and patient associations are important interest groups in both countries. Whereas manufacturers and tumour groups are able to submit applications to CADTH, the Chilean MoH prioritizes applications submitted by patient associations.

Originality/value

Institutions, interests and ideas play important roles in driving HTA decisions in Canada and Chile, which is demonstrated in this novel analysis. This paper provides a unique comparison to highly relevant policy processes in HTA, which is often a research area dominated by effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies.

Differences in health care spending and utilization among older frail adults in high-income countries: ICCONIC hip fracture persona

OBJECTIVE

This study explores differences in spending and utilization of health care services for an older person with frailty before and after a hip fracture.

DATA SOURCES

We used individual-level patient data from five care settings.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared utilization and spending of an older person aged older than 65 years for 365 days before and after a hip fracture across 11 countries and five domains of care as follows: acute hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs. Utilization and spending were age and sex standardized..

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The data were compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries as follows: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The sample ranged from 1859 patients in Spain to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia. The majority of patients across countries were female. Relative to other countries, the United States had the lowest inpatient length of stay (11.3), but the highest number of days were spent in post-acute care rehab (100.7) and, on average, had more visits to specialist providers (6.8 per year) than primary care providers (4.0 per year). Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more per person than other countries per unit ($13,622 per hospitalization, $233 per primary care visit, $386 per MD specialist visit). Patients also had high expenditures in the year prior to the hip fracture, mostly concentrated in the inpatient setting.

CONCLUSION

Across 11 high-income countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for an older person with frailty, both before and after a hip fracture. The United States is the most expensive country due to high prices and above average utilization of post-acute rehab care.

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.

A Health Opportunity Cost Threshold for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis is an important tool for informing treatment coverage and pricing decisions, yet no consensus exists about what threshold for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained indicates whether treatments are likely to be cost-effective in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate a U.S. cost-effectiveness threshold based on health opportunity costs.

DESIGN

Simulation of short-term mortality and morbidity attributable to persons dropping health insurance due to increased health care expenditures passed though as premium increases. Model inputs came from demographic data and the literature; 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were constructed.

SETTING

Population-based.

PARTICIPANTS

Simulated cohort of 100 000 individuals from the U.S. population with direct-purchase private health insurance.

MEASUREMENTS

Number of persons dropping insurance coverage, number of additional deaths, and QALYs lost from increased mortality and morbidity, all per increase of $10 000 000 (2019 U.S. dollars) in population treatment cost.

RESULTS

Per $10 000 000 increase in health care expenditures, 1860 persons (95% UI, 1080 to 2840 persons) were simulated to become uninsured, causing 5 deaths (UI, 3 to 11 deaths), 81 QALYs (UI, 40 to 170 QALYs) lost due to death, and 15 QALYs (UI, 6 to 32 QALYs) lost due to illness; this implies a cost-effectiveness threshold of $104 000 per QALY (UI, $51 000 to $209 000 per QALY) in 2019 U.S. dollars. Given available evidence, there is about 14% probability that the threshold exceeds $150 000 per QALY and about 48% probability that it lies below $100 000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates were sensitive to inputs, most notably the effects of losing insurance on mortality and of premium increases on becoming uninsured. Health opportunity costs may vary by population. Nonhealth opportunity costs were excluded.

CONCLUSION

Given current evidence, treatments with ICERs above the range $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY are unlikely to be cost-effective in the United States.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Model-Informed Precision Dosing: Background, Requirements, Validation, Implementation, and Forward Trajectory of Individualizing Drug Therapy

Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) has become synonymous with modern approaches for individualizing drug therapy, in which the characteristics of each patient are considered as opposed to applying a one-size-fits-all alternative. This review provides a brief account of the current knowledge, practices, and opinions on MIPD while defining an achievable vision for MIPD in clinical care based on available evidence. We begin with a historical perspective on variability in dose requirements and then discuss technical aspects of MIPD, including the need for clinical decision support tools, practical validation, and implementation of MIPD in health care. We also discuss novel ways to characterize patient variability beyond the common perceptions of genetic control. Finally, we address current debates on MIPD from the perspectives of the new drug development, health economics, and drug regulations.

International Experience in Therapeutic Value and Value-Based Pricing: A Rapid Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

To characterize at a global level the concept of therapeutic value (TV) and describe the experience of value-based pricing (VBP) policies in 6 reference countries.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of the literature that addressed 2 exploratory research questions. A systematic and exhaustive search was carried out up to July 2018 in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

The concepts of TV and VBP are related; value frameworks for medicines should include social preferences, comparative effectiveness, safety, adoption viability, social impact, high quality of evidence, severity of illness, and innovation. The added therapeutic value (ATV) is the manner of measuring the therapeutic advantages of new medicines compared with existing ones in terms of comparative effectiveness and safety. There are variations in the mechanisms of reimbursement and drug pricing regulation between the countries of study.

CONCLUSION

In a VBP system it is essential to establish the TV and ATV of a new medicine. Although there are no methodological guidelines for the implementation of VBP policies, the process implies from the beginning the definition of TV categories that will be included in the drug pricing and reimbursement systems. Agreements between the pharmaceutical industry and governments have become a useful tool as a negotiating mechanism in most countries.

The Emerging Social Science Literature on Health Technology Assessment: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Social scientists have paid increasing attention to health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides an overview of existing social scientific literature on HTA, with a focus on sociology and political science and their subfields.

METHODS

Narrative review of key pieces in English.

RESULTS

Three broad themes recur in the emerging social science literature on HTA: the drivers of the establishment and concrete institutional designs of HTA bodies; the effects of institutionalized HTA on pricing and reimbursement systems and the broader society; and the social and political influences on HTA decisions.

CONCLUSION

Social scientists bring a focus on institutions and social actors involved in HTA, using primarily small-N research designs and qualitative methods. They provide valuable critical perspectives on HTA, at times challenging its otherwise unquestioned assumptions. However, they often leave aside questions important to the HTA practitioner community, including the role of culture and values. Closer collaboration could be beneficial to tackle new relevant questions pertaining to HTA.

Different interpretation of additional evidence for HTA by the commissioned HTA body and the commissioning decision maker in Germany: whenever IQWiG and Federal Joint Committee disagree

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact of commissioned addenda by the Federal Joint Committee (FJC) to the HTA body (IQWiG) and their agreement with FJC decisions and to identify potential additional decisive factors of FJC.

METHODS

All available relevant documents up to end of 2017 were screened and essential content extracted. Next to descriptive statistics, differences between IQWiG and FJC were tested and explored by agreement statistics (Cohen's kappa and Fleiss' kappa) and ordinal logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most of the 90 addenda concerned oncological products. In all contingent comparisons, positive changes in added benefit or evidence level on a subpopulation basis (n = 124) prevailed negative ones. Fleiss' ordinal kappa for agreement of assessments, addenda, and appraisals reached a moderate strength for added benefit (0.474, 95%-CI, 0.408-0.540). Overall agreement between addenda and appraisals on a binary nominal basis is poor for added benefit (Cohen's kappa 0.183; 95%-CI: 0.010-0.357) ranging from "less than by chance" (respiratory diseases) to "perfect" (neurological diseases). The OR of the selected regression model showed that i) mortality, ii) unmet need, the positions of iii) the physicians' drug commission and iv) medical societies, and v) the annual therapeutic costs of the appropriate comparative therapy had a high influence on FJC's appraisals deviating from IQWiG's addenda recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

IQWiG's addenda have a high impact on decision-maker's appraisals offering additional analyses of supplementary evidence submitted by the manufacturers. Nevertheless, the agreement between addenda and appraisals varies, highlighting different decisive factors between IQWiG and FJC.

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.

Paradigms in operation: explaining pharmaceutical benefit assessment outcomes in England and Germany

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are used as a policy tool to appraise the clinical value, or cost effectiveness, of new medicines to inform reimbursement decisions in health care. As HTA organisations have been established in different countries, it has become clear that the outcomes of medicine appraisals can vary from country to country, even though the same scientific evidence in the form of randomised controlled trials is available. The extant literature explains such variations with reference to institutional variables and administrative rules. However, little research has been conducted to advance the theoretical understanding of how variations in HTA outcomes might be explained. This paper compares cases of HTA in England and Germany using insights from Kuhn (1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) and Hall (1993, Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25, 275-296) to demonstrate how policy paradigms can explain the outcomes of HTA processes. The paper finds that HTA outcomes are influenced by a combination of logical issues that require reasoning within a paradigm, and institutional and political issues that speak to the interaction between ideational and interest-based variables. It sets out an approach that advances the theoretical explanation of divergent HTA outcomes, and offers an analytical basis on which to assess current and future policy changes in HTA.

Timely, consistent, transparent assessment of market access evidence: implementing tools based on the HTA Core Model® in a pharmaceutical company

Objectives

Evidence requirements and assessment methods access differ between health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. The HTA Core Model^® provides a standardized approach to HTA, targeting evidence sharing and collaboration between participating HTA bodies. It is fit for purpose from an industry perspective and was used by pharmaceutical company Roche to develop a framework for internal assessment of evidence required for market access and coverage/reimbursement (“access evidence”).

Methods

Tools were developed to systematically scope, assess, plan, and summarize access evidence generation. The tools were based mainly on the first four HTA Core Model^® domains and rolled-out in selected development teams in 2017. Five months after full implementation, the impact of tools was assessed in an internal survey.

Results

Systematic access evidence generation started with the Access Evidence Questionnaire, to scope evidence requirements and identify evidence gaps. Findings were summarized in the Access Evidence Metric, which assessed the alignment of available/planned evidence against HTA bodies’ requirements and developed scope mitigation strategies. The Access Evidence Plan was then used to plan and document (additional) evidence generation. Once generated, evidence was summarized in the Access Evidence Dossier. A survey of twenty-seven Roche employees involved in evidence generation showed that the tools made discussions around access strategies and evidence more efficient and transparent.

Conclusions

The HTA Core Model^® provided a useful framework around which to optimize internal evidence generation and assessment. The benefits of using a standardized HTA approach in industry mirror those expected from implementing the HTA Core Model® in HTA agencies.

Varying results of early benefit assessment of newly approved pharmaceutical drugs in Germany from 2011 to 2017: A study based on federal joint committee data

BACKGROUND

Since January 2011, the Federal Joint Committee (FJC) conducts early benefit assessments (EBA) of newly approved pharmaceutical drugs compared to appropriate standard therapies. The FJC commissions the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQEH) to prepare preliminary reports. We aimed to evaluate the extent, impact, and reason for different judgments on added benefit of both institutions.

METHODS

We searched EBA data on the FJC website and included completed procedures from 2011 to 2017. We conducted a quantitative analysis of the difference between FJC and IQEH on divergent judgments, a quantitative analysis of the impact of EBA on market withdrawal, and a qualitative analysis to identify potential factors contributing to divergent judgments.

RESULTS

FJC rated an added benefit in 30% (139 of 457) and IQEH in 22% (101 of 457) matching research questions (P = 0.004). In the aftermath of EBA, 28 pharmaceutical drugs were withdrawn from the German market. We identified three potential factors that might have contributed to the divergent judgments. IQEH used a unique threshold concept to define the rating, FJC conducted additional public hearings, and FJC showed more flexibility with adherence to stringent criteria and interpretation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

FJC and IQEH differed significantly in their early benefit assessment. In response to negative EBA decisions, pharmaceutical companies withdrew a considerable number of medicines from the German market. The present work uncovers the subjectivity and possible variance inherent in benefit assessment, as the two institutions observe the same rules of procedure.

Is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England more 'innovation-friendly' than the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany?

Objectives: Our study explores whether, and how, different methodological choices are associated with different health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes. We focus on the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Both agencies may be considered as exemplars for the application of the principles of evidence-based medicine and the logic of cost-effectiveness, respectively. Methods: We extracted data from all publically available G-BA appraisals until April 2015, as well as all NICE single technology appraisals completed during this period. We compared HTA results for matched condition-intervention pairs by G-BA and NICE, and explored other factors including therapeutic area, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Results: NICE issued guidance for 88 technologies (125 subgroups) and recommended 67/88 technologies (99/125 subgroups). G-BA completed 105 appraisals (226 subgroups) and determined additional benefit for 64/105 appraisals (90/226 subgroups). We identified 37 matched pairs; for 24/37 drugs, evaluations diverged. NICE recommended 78% (29/37) of technologies appraised, whereas G-BA confirmed additional benefit for 57% (21/37) only (p < 0.05). Conclusions: NICE evaluates new drugs more favorably than G-BA. However, our analysis suggests differences by therapeutic area. Results indicate that different methods are associated with systematic differences in HTA outcomes.

Present challenges in cervical cancer prevention: Answers from cost-effectiveness analyses

Simulation models are commonly used to address important health policy issues that cannot be explored through experimental studies. These models are especially useful to determine a set of strategies that result in a good value for money (cost-effectiveness). Several mathematical models simulating the natural history of HPV and related diseases, especially cervical cancer, have been developed to calculate a relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening interventions. Virtually all cost-effectiveness analyses identify HPV vaccination programmes for preadolescent girls to be cost-effective, even for relatively low vaccination coverage rates. Routine vaccination of preadolescent girls is the primary target population for HPV vaccination as it shows to provide the greatest health impact. Cost-effectiveness analyses assessing other vaccine target groups are less conclusive. Adding additional age-cohorts would accelerate health benefits in some years, although cost-effectiveness becomes less favourable as age at vaccination increases. Including men in HPV vaccination programmes may be a less efficient strategy if done at the expense of female vaccination coverage for reducing the burden of HPV in the population. However, as the HPV vaccine price decreases, the cost-effectiveness of universal vaccination improves, becoming equally as efficient as female-only vaccination. Vaccine price is a decisive factor in the cost-effectiveness analyses. The lower the price, the greater the likelihood that vaccination groups other than the primary target would be considered cost-effective.

IS THE EUNETHTA HTA CORE MODEL® FIT FOR PURPOSE? EVALUATION FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

OBJECTIVES

The HTA Core Model® was developed to improve the transferability of health technology assessment (HTA) between settings. The model has been used by HTA agencies but is also of interest to manufacturers, for improving internal evidence generation and communicating with other HTA stakeholders. To establish if the model is fit for purpose from an industry perspective, the pharmaceutical company Roche, collaborating with the European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA), conducted an assessment of the model.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed to evaluate all assessment elements in the HTA Core Model v2.0 for their usefulness in meeting payers' evidence needs and demonstrating value. The questionnaire was completed by country affiliate teams working in evidence generation and reimbursement submissions for pharmaceuticals. Survey results were discussed in workshops to ensure consistency and alignment between teams.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by six teams. An additional team from global pricing and market access participated in workshops. Model domains pertaining to the health problem and current technology use, technology description, clinical effectiveness, and economic value were considered most important because they meet payers' evidence needs. Overall, the model was considered useful to improve the efficiency of HTA evidence generation, share evidence internally, and communicate value to payers and HTA agencies.

CONCLUSIONS

From an industry perspective, the HTA Core Model provides a useful framework and common terminology for efficient generation of transferable HTA evidence. The timeliness, efficiency, and transparency of HTA processes could be improved by a more standardized approach to HTA across settings.

Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries

This study systematically compares HTA recommendations on a number of disease-modifying therapies for patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. We analysed publicly available HTA reports for nine medicine-indication pairs across seven OECD countries using a methodological framework enabling systematic analysis of HTA recommendations. The analysis was conducted based on a number of value dimensions, including clinical and economic variables, as well as several other dimensions of value beyond cost-effectiveness. The material was qualitatively and quantitatively coded following the different stages of HTA decision-making process. Fifty-seven medicine-indication pairs were assessed across the study countries. Of those, eight medicine indication-pairs reported diverging HTA recommendations. Although HTA recommendations were based on the same evidence submitted in most cases, significant variations were identified in interpretation and acceptance of evidence resulting in different uncertainties raised and different ways of addressing them. Uncertainties arose both in terms of the clinical and the economic evidence, including the design of key trials or the data quality in economic models. Beyond costs and effects, additional dimensions of value had an impact in the direction of recommendations, however with different magnitude across countries. We show that there is heterogeneity across countries in HTA for evaluating DMTs for RRMS with a lack of standardised methods in evaluating clinical and economic evidence and the use of social value judgments to inform decision-making.

New Medicines in Wales: The All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) Appraisal Process and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) develops prescribing advice and is responsible for appraising new medicines for use in Wales. In this article, we examine the medicines appraisal process in Wales, its timeliness and its impact on medicines availability in Wales, and compare its processes and recommendations with the two other UK health technology appraisal bodies [the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)].

METHODS

We reviewed the medicines appraisals conducted by AWMSG between October 2010 and September 2015. The duration of the process and the recommendations made by AWMSG were compared with those of NICE and SMC. Only publicly available data were considered in this review.

RESULTS

AWMSG conducted 171 single technology appraisals for 137 medicines during the study period (34 were for medicines previously appraised by AWMSG but these were for new indications). Of these, 152 appraisals were supported for use in NHS Wales (33 with restrictions) and 19 were not supported. Recommendations broadly concurred with SMC and NICE for the majority of appraisals. Compared with NICE recommendations, the median time advantage gained in Wales for those medicines that received a positive AWMSG recommendation and which were subsequently superseded by NICE advice was 10.6 months (range 3.5-48.3 months; n = 17).

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the work carried out by AWMSG over a 5-year period, and provides evidence to support the effectiveness of the appraisal process in terms of patients in Wales gaining earlier access to medicines and efficiency through reduced duplication with NICE.

The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017

BACKGROUND

Most Canadian provinces and territories rely on the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provide recommendations regarding public reimbursement of cancer drugs. The pCODR review process considers four dimensions of value-clinical benefit, economic evaluation, patient-based values and adoption feasibility-but they do not define weights for individual decision criteria or an acceptable threshold for any of the criteria. Given this implicit review process, it is of interest to understand which factors appear to carry the most weight in pCODR recommendations using a revealed preferences approach.

METHODS

Using publicly available decision summaries (n = 91) describing submissions and resulting recommendations 2011-2017, we extracted ten attributes that characterized each submission. Using logistic regression, we identified statistically significant attributes and estimated their relative impact in final recommendations.

RESULTS

Clinical aspects appear to carry the greatest weight in the decision to reject or not reject, along with aspects of patient value (treatments with no alternatives were less likely to be rejected). Cost effectiveness does not appear to play a role in the initial decision to reject or not reject but is critical in full versus conditional approvals. There is evidence of a maximum acceptable threshold of around $Can140,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

CONCLUSION

A set of factors driving pCODR recommendations is identifiable, supporting the consistency of the review process. However, the implicit nature of the review process and the difficulty of extracting and interpreting some of the attribute levels used in the analysis suggests that the process may still lack full transparency.

Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: Decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs

The early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany and their preceding market authorization pursue different objectives. This is reflected by the inclusion of varying confirmatory endpoints within the evaluation of oncology drugs in early benefit assessment versus market authorization, with both relying on the same evidence. Data from assessments up to July 2015 are used to estimate the impact of explorative in comparison to confirmatory endpoints on market authorization and early benefit assessment by contrasting the benefit-risk ratio of EMA and the benefit-harm balance of the HTA jurisdiction. Agreement between market authorization and early benefit assessment is examined by Cohen's kappa (k). 21 of 41 assessments were considered in the analysis. Market authorization is more confirmatory than early benefit assessment because it includes a higher proportion of primary endpoints. The latter implies a primary endpoint to be relevant for the benefit-harm balance in only 67% of cases (0.078). Explorative mortality endpoints reached the highest agreement regarding the mutual consideration for the risk-benefit ratio and the benefit-harm balance (0.000). For explorative morbidity endpoints (-0.600), quality of life (-0.600) and side effects (-0.949) no agreement is ascertainable. To warrant a broader confirmatory basis for decisions supported by HTA, closer inter-institutional cooperation of approval authorities and HTA jurisdictions by means of reliable joint advice for manufacturers regarding endpoint definition would be favorable.

Do reimbursement recommendation processes used by government drug plans in Canada adhere to good governance principles?

In democratic societies, good governance is the key to assuring the confidence of stakeholders and other citizens in how governments and organizations interact with and relate to them and how decisions are taken. Although defining good governance can be debatable, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) set of principles is commonly used. The reimbursement recommendation processes of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), which carries out assessments for all public drug plans outside Quebec, are examined in the light of the UNDP governance principles and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence system in England. The adherence of CADTH’s processes to the principles of accountability, transparency, participatory, equity, responsiveness and consensus is poor, especially when compared with the English system, due in part to CADTH’s lack of genuine independence. CADTH’s overriding responsibility is toward the governments that “own,” fund and manage it, while the agency’s status as a not-for-profit corporation under federal law protects it from standard government forms of accountability. The recent integration of CADTH’s reimbursement recommendation processes with the provincial public drug plans’ collective system for price negotiation with pharmaceutical companies reinforces CADTH’s role as a nonindependent partner in the pursuit of governments’ cost-containment objectives, which should not be part of its function. Canadians need a national organization for evaluating drugs for reimbursement in the public interest that fully embraces the principles of good governance – one that is publicly accountable, transparent and fair and includes all stakeholders throughout its processes.