Time to Entry for New Cancer Medicines: From European Union-Wide Marketing Authorization to Patient Access in Belgium, Estonia, Scotland, and Sweden

Harmonizing regulatory market approval of products with high safety requirements: Evidence from the European pharmaceutical market

We causally analyzed whether being a member of the European Union (EU) and having access to a centralized marketing authorization procedure (centralized procedure [CP]) affects availability and time to launch of new pharmaceuticals. We employed multiple difference-in-differences models, exploiting the eastern enlargement of the EU as well as changes in the indications that fall within the compulsory or voluntary scope of the CP. Results showed that countries experienced a mean decrease in launch delay of 10.9 months (p = 0.004) after joining the EU. Effects were higher among pharmaceuticals that belong to indications that might voluntarily participate in the CP but are not obliged to. These are often financially less attractive to manufacturers than pharmaceuticals within the compulsory scope. Availability of new pharmaceuticals launched remained unaffected. We found signs that the magnitude of the country-specific effect of centralized marketing authorization on launch delay may be influenced by strategic decisions of manufacturers at the national level (e.g., parallel trade or reference pricing).

Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Uptake and availability of new outpatient cancer medicines in 2010-2021 in Nordic countries - survey of competent authorities

BACKGROUND

Nordic countries excel in cancer care, but studies on uptake, costs, or managed entry agreements of cancer medicines have not been conducted recently. The aim of this study was to examine the uptake and availability of orally administered new cancer medicines in Nordic countries. Orally administered cancer medicines enable and are used in the community as part of outpatient care. Firstly, we studied the distribution, costs and adoption of managed entry agreements of these medicines, and secondly, uptake of and managed entry agreements for cancer medicines used in outpatient care that were granted marketing authorization in Europe in 2010-2021.

METHODS

An E-mail survey of competent authorities, meaning pharmaceutical service organizers, payers or other government or non-government actors developing pharmaceutical service operations, in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden in April-June 2022. The data were analysed using frequencies and percentages for descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

The distribution of cancer medicines has similarities in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, where cancer medicines can be distributed both via hospitals or hospital pharmacies for inpatient use, and via community pharmacies for outpatient use. In Denmark, cancer medicines are predominantly distributed via publicly funded hospitals. In all countries that provided data on the costs, the costs of cancer medicines had notably gone up from 2010 to 2021. The number of reimbursable medicines out of new cancer medicines varied from 36 products in Denmark and Iceland to 51 products in Sweden, out of 67 studied products. Managed entry agreements, often with confidential discounts, were in use in all Nordic countries. The number of agreements and the cancer types for which agreements were most often made varied from three agreements made in Iceland to 35 agreements made in Finland, out of 67 studied products. Average days from authorization to reimbursement of new cancer medicines varied from an average of 416 to 895 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Nordic countries share similar characteristics but also differ in terms of the details in distribution, adopted managed entry agreements, market entry, and availability of new orally administered cancer medicines used in the outpatient care. The costs of cancer medicines have increased in all Nordic countries during the last decade. Due to differences in health care and because orally administered cancer medicines can be dispensed at community and hospital pharmacies in all studied countries other than Denmark, the number of reimbursable medicines and managed entry agreements vary between countries. However, Nordic countries show good agreement for 2010 to 2021 in entry and reimbursement decisions of novel cancer medicines.

Time From Marketing Authorization to Reimbursement of Medicines in Greece After the Introduction of the Health Technology Assessment Process From July 2018 to April 2022

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to quantify the median time from marketing authorization (MA) to the inclusion of medicines in the reimbursement list after the introduction of the health technology assessment process in Greece.

METHODS

From July 2018 to April 2022, the Ministerial Decisions (MDs) and reimbursement lists, posted on the website of the Ministry of Health, were reviewed. The following information was collected for the medicines: the date that MDs and positive reimbursement lists were issued, the MA date, the date of the official price publication, and the type of the health technology assessment application. The time from MA to listing was calculated as the difference between the MA date and the date that the relevant reimbursement list was issued.

RESULTS

During the study period, 93 MDs were issued, from which 79 (85%) were positive and 14 (15%) were negative. Focusing on medicines included in the positive list for the first time, the median time from MA to listing for the new molecules was found to be 34.8 (interquartile range 25.7-41.3) months. This time was statistically significantly shortened for fixed dose combinations (20.9 [15.3-45.4] months, P = .008), and biosimilars (23 [16.6-28.2] months, P = .001). For generics was 17.6 (interquartile range 10-30) months, statistically significantly lower than that of new molecules (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The time from MA to the inclusion of medicines in the reimbursement list in Greece is significantly long, especially for innovative medicines. Thus, policy makers should consider this point to optimize and improve patients' subsidized access.

HTA Barriers for Conditional Approval Drugs

BACKGROUND

Conditional approval pathways facilitate accelerated marketing authorisation based on immature clinical evidence for drugs that address an unmet medical need in a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition. Lowering evidence requirements for marketing authorisation results in higher clinical uncertainty, which may present challenges for the health technology assessment (HTA) of these products.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess whether conditionally approved drugs face higher probabilities of HTA rejection or delays in HTA approval relative to drugs with standard marketing authorisation.

METHODS

This paper adopts a mixed-methods approach to provide a meta-analysis of HTA outcomes across 80 drug-indication pairs in France, England, Scotland and Canada. Differences in the characteristics (i.e. disease rarity and clinical trial design) of conditionally approved drugs and drugs with standard marketing authorisation and drivers of HTA outcomes are assessed through logistics regressions. Delays in HTA approval are assessed through a survival analysis.

RESULTS

Relative to standard approval drugs, conditionally approved drugs are less likely to include phase III trial designs, less likely to include clinical endpoints and less likely to include an active comparator. Uncertainties in clinical and economic evidence are raised more frequently by HTA agencies for conditionally approved drugs, which have a marginally lower probability of receiving HTA approval relative to drugs with standard approval. Conditionally approved drugs face moderate delays (an average of 6 months) in receiving HTA approval relative to standard approval drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, conditionally approved drugs likely face increased barriers at the HTA level.

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.

Healthcare Payer Perspectives on the Assessment and Pricing of Oncology Multi-Indication Products: Evidence from Nine OECD Countries

BACKGROUND

New pharmaceuticals are increasingly being developed for use across multiple indications. Countries across Europe and North America have adopted a range of different approaches to capture differences in the value of individual indications.

OBJECTIVE

The three aims of this study were (i) to review the price-setting practice over the past 5 years for multi-indication products across England, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey, Canada and the USA; (ii) to assess the impact of current practices on launch strategy; and (iii) to identify issues in the implementation of indication-based pricing.

METHODS

Ten current and former members of health insurance organisations, healthcare payer organisations or health technology assessment agencies with expertise on pharmaceutical purchasing were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of countries studied require full assessments upon launch of a new indication. Five different approaches to pricing were identified: weighted pricing, differential discounting, mandatory discount, price anchoring and free pricing. Manufacturers show a tendency to launch first in niche indications with high unmet need to achieve a high price. Stakeholders from England, France, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland consider their current system fit for purpose, while other countries expressed concern over the administrative burden of monitoring products at indication level.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high administrative burden, it is questionable whether indication-based pricing would provide additional public benefit above and beyond current weighted dynamic single pricing and differential discounting practices for multi-indication products.

Treatment patterns, adherence to international guidelines, and financial mechanisms of the market access of advanced breast cancer therapy in Bulgaria

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in Europe. Advanced breast cancer (ABC) poses a significant therapeutic challenge, and therefore, timely access to treatment is crucial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the treatment patterns and patients' access to new therapies for ABC in Bulgaria.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study in the period 2008-2021. Based on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) database, we analyzed a number of medicinal products with marketing authorization for ABC in the last 13 years. Time to market access was evaluated as the degree of availability, which is measured by the number of medicines that are available to patients (availability index, AI), and the average time elapsed between obtaining a marketing authorization and time to inclusion in the Positive Drug List. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics via Microsoft Excel version 10.

Results

The average time to access was 564 days for targeted therapy. The availability and compliance index for chemotherapy and hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer was 1, while the average AI for targeted therapy was 0.67. Patient access to targeted oncology therapy of ABC is above average for Europe and takes 1-2 years.

Conclusion

Faster access is more evident for biosimilars. National regulatory requirements for pricing and reimbursement have a major impact on market access.

Financing Strategies to Facilitate Access to High-Cost Anticancer Drugs: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Each country manages access to anticancer drugs differently due to variations in the structure and financing of the health system, but a summary of the various strategies used is absent. This study aimed to review and summarize financing strategies implemented across countries to facilitate access to high-cost anticancer drugs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles referenced in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through May 12, 2021. Articles published in the English language from 2000 that describe strategies implemented in different countries to facilitate access to high-cost anticancer drugs were included. Letters, news articles, and proposed strategies were excluded. Quality assessment was not performed as we aimed to summarize the strategies. Data were analyzed by thematic analysis. A review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018068616).

RESULTS

The review included 204 studies from 176 countries. Three themes of financing strategies were identified: (1) Basic pharmaceutical reimbursement and pricing policies, (2) Alternative funding strategies specific to high-cost drugs, and (3) Financial assistance for individual patients. Access in most countries depends mainly on basic pharmaceutical reimbursement policies (165 of 176 countries). Apart from that, high-income countries (HICs) tended to use funding strategies targeting high-cost drugs (72% of HICs vs 0%-24% of the rest), such as managed entry agreements (MEAs) or dedicated funds for high-cost drugs. In contrast, lower-income countries tended to implement financial assistance programs for cancer patients as a tool to increase access (32% of HICs vs 62%-79% of the rest).

CONCLUSION

Many countries have implemented a combination of strategies to increase access to high-cost anticancer drugs. Most low- and middle-income countries utilized placement of anticancer drugs on a national list of essential medicines and patient assistance programs (PAPs) to facilitate access, while many HICs implemented a broader range of strategies.

Comparison of Prices and Affordability of Cancer Medicines in 16 Countries in Europe and Latin America

BACKGROUND

There are concerns that high prices of cancer medicines may limit patient access. Since information on prices for cancer medicines and their impact on affordability is lacking for several countries, particularly for lower income countries, this study surveys prices of originator cancer medicines in Europe and Latin America and assesses their affordability.

METHODS

For 19 cancer medicines, public procurement and ex-factory prices, as of 2017, were surveyed in five Latin American (LATAM) countries (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) and 11 European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Price data (public procurement prices in LATAM and ex-factory prices in Europe) in US dollar purchasing power parities (PPP) were analyzed per defined daily dose. Affordability was measured by setting medicines prices in relation to national minimum wages.

RESULTS

The prices of cancer medicines varied considerably between countries. In European countries with higher levels of income, PPP-adjusted prices tended to be lower than in European countries of lower income and LATAM countries. Except for one medicine, all surveyed medicines were considered unaffordable in most countries. In European countries of lower income and LATAM countries, more than 15 days' worth of minimum wages would be required by a worker to purchase one defined daily dose of several of the studied medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prices and large unaffordability of cancer medicines call for strengthening pricing policies with the aim of ensuring affordable treatment in cancer care.

Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement

Background

We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO‐VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO‐MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation.

Methods

Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS) of drug indications.

Results

Eighty‐four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO‐VF and 50 ESMO‐MCBS scores. The mean ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = −0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO‐VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO‐MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models.

Conclusions

Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits.

Role of the EMA specific marketing authorization procedures for early access on the time to patient access in Bulgaria

Despite the early access procedures for marketing authorization (MA) valid throughout the European Union still in the most of the Member states patient access to innovative medicines depends on cost-effectiveness, budget impact assessment and negotiations for price discount with the public payers.

Retrospective analysis on the availability and time to market access of medicines authorized under the European medicines agency’s specific procedures for early access shows that despite the shortening of the time to market access after 2013, for most medicines still exceeds 365 days. This is due to the fact that requirements for pricing and reimbursement across EU is fixed to some degree and medicines with MA for early access are subject to the same legal requirements as the medicines with standard centralized marketing authorization. Some specific national legal requirements for pricing and reimbursement decisions, population of interest and manufactures intentions to enter certain markets should also be considered.

Assessing the benefit of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale over time

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, cancer drugs are being approved based on surrogate measurements of efficacy. Clinically meaningful data, such as overall survival (OS) and quality of life, are often only presented in subsequent publications. We examined if the clinical benefit of cancer drugs, as measured by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), improves post-European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval as more data emerges.

METHODS

Cancer drug indications approved by the EMA from January 2006 to December 2016 were reviewed and trials cited for efficacy were identified. Primary and subsequent publications (up to December 2019) of scorable trials were included. Changes in benefit over time were measured using ESMO-MCBS thresholds for non-curative (≥4 for substantial, =3 for intermediate and ≤2 for low benefit) and curative intent (A or B for major benefit) scoring.

RESULTS

Fifty-five non-curative and two curative intent trials were included. At approval, 29.1% of non-curative trials were substantial, 45.5% intermediate and 25.5% low benefit. For curative intent trials, one displayed major benefit and one displayed no major benefit. We identified 82 subsequent publications for reassessment. A change in ESMO-MCBS classification was seen in 34.5% of non-curative trials (11 raised and 8 lowered). At 3-year reassessment, 36.4% of non-curative trials were substantial, 34.5% intermediate and 29.1% low benefit. Both curative trials showed no major benefit at reassessment.

CONCLUSION

As over a third of trials changed classification, in either direction, reassessing the ESMO-MCBS score of approved cancer drugs may help to inform patients and ensure ongoing relevance of regulatory and reimbursement decisions.

EQ-5D-Derived Health State Utility Values in Hematologic Malignancies: A Catalog of 796 Utilities Based on a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review of health state utility values (HSUVs) obtained using the EQ-5D questionnaire for patients with hematologic malignancies.

METHODS

The following databases were searched up to September 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the EQ-5D publications database on the EuroQol website. Additional references were extracted from reviewed articles. Only studies presenting EQ-Index results were incorporated. In view of the heterogeneity across the included publications, we limited ourselves to a narrative synthesis of original HSUVs found.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies (described in 63 articles) met the inclusion criteria. Data from 21 635 respondents provided 796 HSUV estimates for hematologic malignancy patients. EQ-Index scores ranged from -0.025 to 0.980. The most represented area was multiple myeloma (4 studies, 11 112 patients, and 249 HSUVs). In clinical areas such as chronic myeloid leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma, we described over 50 health utilities in each. In contrast, we identified only 13 HSUVs (based on 4 studies and the data of 166 patients) for Hodgkin lymphoma. Areas without EQ-5D-based health utilities comprised: polycythemia vera, primary myelofibrosis, essential thrombocythemia, mastocytosis, myeloid sarcoma, chronic myelomonocytic, eosinophilic leukemia, and neutrophilic leukemia.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide range of HSUVs available for hematologic cancer patients with different indications. The review provides a catalog of utility values for use in cost-effectiveness models for hematologic malignancies.

Health Technology Assessment of Drugs in Ireland: An Analysis of Timelines

BACKGROUND

The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) is commissioned by the Corporate Pharmaceutical Unit of the Health Service Executive (HSE-CPU) to assess the evidence for the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of drugs for use by patients in Ireland. All new drugs are required to undergo rapid review (RR) appraisal by the NCPE. Following this, high-cost drugs or those predicted to have a significant budget impact then undergo a full health technology assessment (HTA) appraisal by the NCPE.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to quantify each stage of the timeline from marketing authorisation (MA) to completion of HTA appraisal and explore the association between submission features and the time to appraise RRs and HTAs.

METHODS

All RRs and HTAs submitted to the NCPE (2015-2017 inclusive) were included in the dataset. Several dates and features of each submission were also listed for the purpose of analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 158 RR and 49 HTA appraisals were completed by the NCPE between 2015 and 2017. The median time from MA to submission of RR was 59 days; the median time to appraise RR was 31.5 days. Only 49% of RRs appraised (2015-2017 inclusive) were recommended for HTA. The median time from RR decision to submission of HTA was 115 days, and the median time taken by the NCPE to appraise an HTA was 131 days.

CONCLUSION

This paper identifies which stages of the process make a substantial contribution to the HTA timeline. Time to submission of RR varied widely between submissions, with only a few companies choosing to submit prior to an MA being granted. The average RR appraisal time was in line with the 4-week timeframe set out in a 2016 agreement. The time to appraise an HTA was longer than the 90-day timeframe.

FDA and EMA Approvals of New Breast Cancer Drugs-A Comparative Regulatory Analysis

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and the solid tumor type for which the highest number of drugs have been approved to date. This study examines new drug approvals for breast cancer by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), based on an analysis of regulatory documents from both agencies for the period from 1995 to 2018. Of the 29 breast cancer drugs approved over this time span, 17 received positive decisions from both the FDA and EMA, including all drugs licensed after 2008. Nineteen of the 25 FDA-approved drugs, but none of the EMA approvals, benefited from special regulatory pathways (such as fast track, breakthrough therapy, or priority review). In the U.S.A., four accelerated approvals were granted (of which one, for bevacizumab, was later revoked), while only two drugs received provisional approvals following EMA review. New breast cancer drugs were approved approximately twelve months earlier in the United States than in Europe. These results suggest that a broader use of special regulatory pathways by EMA could help to accelerate access to novel drugs for European breast cancer patients.

Screening, identification and validation of CCND1 and PECAM1/CD31 for predicting prognosis in renal cell carcinoma patients

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Despite intense efforts to elucidate its pathogenesis, the molecular mechanisms and genetic characteristics of this cancer remain unknown. In this study, three expression profile data sets (GSE15641, GSE16441 and GSE66270) were integrated to identify candidate genes that could elucidate functional pathways in ccRCC. Expression data from 63 ccRCC tumors and 54 normal samples were pooled and analyzed. The GSE profiles shared 379 differentially expressed genes (DEGs), including 249 upregulated genes, and 130 downregulated genes. A protein-protein interaction network (PPI) was constructed and analyzed using STRING and Cytoscape. Functional and signaling pathways of the shared DEGs with significant p values were identified. Kaplan-Meier plots of integrated expression scores were used to analyze survival outcomes. These suggested that FN1, ICAM1, CXCR4, TYROBP, EGF, CAV1, CCND1 and PECAM1/CD31 were independent prognostic factors in ccRCC. Finally, to investigate early events in renal cancer, we screened for the hub genes CCND1 and PECAM1/CD31. In summary, integrated bioinformatics analysis identified candidate DEGs and pathways in ccRCC that could improve our understanding of the causes and underlying molecular events of ccRCC. These candidate genes and pathways could be therapeutic targets for ccRCC.

What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries

BACKGROUND

Decisions on the reimbursement of the same cancer drugs are different across European countries, but empirical work on the reasons behind these differences has been scarce. The main objective of this paper is to make a methodological contribution to existing research, specifically by outlining the systematic process of analysis to address such questions and determining the factors that might lead to different drug reimbursement decisions, and to explore its application in the field of oncology.

METHODS

Reimbursement decisions on cancer drugs in six European countries (Belgium, England, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, and Sweden) between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. A taxonomy was developed, comprising two groups of variables (system-level and product-specific) and an econometric model was specified (multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit).

RESULTS

Only one in six evaluations in the sample reach the same reimbursement recommendation. Most health system variables were not determinants of a higher or lower probability of a positive reimbursement recommendation. However, the probability of reimbursement was higher when a drug was considered cost-effective by NICE/SMC and when there was a financial Managed Entry Agreement. This work also demonstrated a possible econometric approach for analysing differences in reimbursement decisions and contributes a structured approach for collecting and preparing data for such analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug reimbursement decisions can be analysed in detail along a set of factors that are related to each decision. This information is essential, not only for understanding why a particular drug is accepted in one country and not in another but also when trying to implement a new HTA system or reform an existing one. This analysis provides policy makers and stakeholders with a model that enables a better understanding of the factors that drive HTA decisions and is adaptable to answer similar questions. Moreover, the data collection limitations encountered and described in this work shed light on the need for greater accessibility and transparency in HTA systems and regarding HTA outcomes.