Can we achieve affordable cancer medicine prices? Developing a pathway for change

Interface policies bridging outpatient and hospital sectors in Europe: can cross-sectorial collaboration in reimbursement and procurement improve access to affordable medicines?

INTRODUCTION

Pharmaceutical systems are frequently characterized by fragmentation, and competences for outpatient and inpatient sectors sit with different authorities, payers, and purchasers. This fragmentation of responsibilities can incentivize shifting expensive therapies and thus patients from one sector to the other.

AREAS COVERED

Reimbursement and procurement policies in Europe addressing unwanted consequences of this fragmentation were identified through literature reviews and surveys with policy-makers. Good practice examples include cross-sectorial reimbursement lists managed by committees with representatives from the outpatient and hospital sectors, specific funding mechanisms, joint procurement involving purchasers from both sectors, actions against procurement contracts prohibiting generic competition, and an extension of Health Technology Assessment to the hospital sector.

EXPERT OPINION

Recognizing fragmentation as a major challenge for pharmaceutical systems, policy-makers in some countries reacted by implementing policies to support cross-sectorial collaboration. However, only a handful of good practice examples exist for reimbursement and procurement policies in Europe. Though robust evaluations are lacking, there are indications that pharmaceutical policies which ensure collaboration at the interface of the outpatient and inpatient sectors would likely result in efficiency gains and better use of public budgets and may serve as lever to improve access to medicines.

The impact of statistical properties of incremental monetary net benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio on health economic modeling choices

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy on whether to use incremental monetary net benefit (INMB) or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in health economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials. We studied the impact of restricted mean survival time (RMST) on the long-term projection of INMB and ICER.

METHODS

We analyzed the unbiasedness and efficiency of ICER and INMB by (1) deriving the metrics' expected values and variances based on theoretical probability distributions, (2) simulating their 15-year post-trial projections based on between-arm-RMST-gained through a 2 × 4 × 2 factorial experiment of Markov 2-state microsimulations. Simulations and comparison were run on the data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies Study (COMPASS).

RESULTS

Our simulation findings using RMST showed that ICER was more efficient than INMB, regardless of disease populations, time horizon, modeling choices, and underlying probability distributions of incremental mean cost and effect. ICER had a small variance and thus showed its robustness to the choices of models.

CONCLUSION

INMB's variance varies with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold quadratically while ICER's variance with a WTP threshold value quadratically while ICER's variance with incremental-mean-cost quadratically. A simple and naïve model can sufficiently estimate ICER. Future metrics are expected to be health-economic-meaningful, unambiguous, unbiased, efficient, and statistical-inference-friendly.

How do hospital characteristics and ties relate to the uptake of second-generation biosimilars? A longitudinal analysis of Portuguese NHS hospitals, 2015-2021

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on within-country discrepancies in biosimilar uptake. This study analyzes differences in timing and diffusion of biosimilar uptake across Portuguese NHS hospitals and explores possible determinants.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed publicly accessible consumption data of originator biologic and biosimilar drugs for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, by hospital and month for the years 2015-2021 (N = 9,467). We modeled the time to biosimilar adoption using survival regression models and the share of biosimilar consumption using generalized estimated equations with random hospital effects.

RESULTS

Academic hospitals were characterized by a quicker uptake of adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars but lower shares for other drugs. A higher total consumption of biologics was related to a lower share of biosimilar uptake. A stronger participation in randomized controlled trials was linked to higher biosimilar shares and quicker uptake, except for rituximab. If all NHS hospitals had biosimilar shares equal to the highest ones, potential annual savings could reach 13.9 million euros.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest a need for capacity-building on biosimilar prescribing, including for doctors of academic hospitals and those working in settings where high biosimilar use would be expected.

Challenges and Opportunities With Routinely Collected Data on the Utilization of Cancer Medicines. Perspectives From Health Authority Personnel Across 18 European Countries

Background: Rising expenditure for new cancer medicines is accelerating concerns that their costs will become unsustainable for universal healthcare access. Moreover, early market access of new oncology medicines lacking appropriate clinical evaluation generates uncertainty over their cost-effectiveness and increases expenditure for unknown health gain. Patient-level data can complement clinical trials and generate better evidence on the effectiveness, safety and outcomes of these new medicines in routine care. This can support policy decisions including funding. Consequently, there is a need for improving datasets for establishing real-world outcomes of newly launched oncology medicines.

Aim: To outline the types of available datasets for collecting patient-level data for oncology among different European countries. Additionally, to highlight concerns regarding the use and availability of such data from a health authority perspective as well as possibilities for cross-national collaboration to improve data collection and inform decision-making.

Methods: A mixed methods approach was undertaken through a cross-sectional questionnaire followed-up by a focus group discussion. Participants were selected by purposive sampling to represent stakeholders across different European countries and healthcare settings. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantifiable questions, whilst content analysis was employed for open-ended questions.

Results: 25 respondents across 18 European countries provided their insights on the types of datasets collecting oncology data, including hospital records, cancer, prescription and medicine registers. The most available is expenditure data whilst data concerning effectiveness, safety and outcomes is less available, and there are concerns with data validity. A major constraint to data collection is the lack of comprehensive registries and limited data on effectiveness, safety and outcomes of new medicines. Data ownership limits data accessibility as well as possibilities for linkage, and data collection is time-consuming, necessitating dedicated staff and better systems to facilitate the process. Cross-national collaboration is challenging but the engagement of multiple stakeholders is a key step to reach common goals through research.

Conclusion: This study acts as a starting point for future research on patient-level databases for oncology across Europe. Future recommendations will require continued engagement in research, building on current initiatives and involving multiple stakeholders to establish guidelines and commitments for transparency and data sharing.

For Whom the Price Escalates: High Price and Uncertain Value of Cancer Drugs

The price of cancer drugs has skyrocketed, yet it is not clear whether their value is commensurate with their price. More cancer drugs are approved under expedited review, which considers less rigorous clinical evidence, yet only 20% of them show an overall survival gain in the confirmatory trial. Moreover, clinical data are often generated based on small, single-arm studies with surrogate outcomes, challenging economic evaluation. With their high price and uncertain (marginal) clinical value, cancer drugs are frequently rejected by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Therefore, agencies, including the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), have adopted cancer drug funds (CDF) or risk-sharing schemes to provide extra access for expensive cancer drugs which fail to meet NICE's cost effectiveness threshold. With rising pricing and fewer new cancer medications with novel mechanisms of action, it is unclear if newly marketed cancer therapies address unmet clinical needs or whether we are paying too much. Transparency, equity, innovativeness, and sustainability are all harmed by a "special" approach for cancer medications. If early access is allowed, confirmatory trials within a certain time frame and economic evaluation should be conducted, and label changes or disinvestment should be carried out based on those evaluations.