Access with evidence development in the UK: past experience, current initiatives and future potential

Acuerdos de Riesgo Compartido: Lecciones Para su Diseño e Implementación a la Luz de la Experiencia Internacional

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing interest in risk-sharing agreements as appropriate payment mechanisms for high-cost treatments, few practical resources facilitate their adoption.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and propose lessons for designing and implementing these models based on a review of the international experience, and to offer a concise model based on these lessons.

METHODS

The steps of the Joanna Briggs Institute were adopted, which included identifying the concept and its relevant variants in scientific and gray literature.

RESULTS

Forty-one references were examined in depth. The design of these payment mechanisms should be a process carried out by competent actors (payer, producer, specialists, patients, and a neutral entity); the design must be supported by a sound regulatory and contractual framework that structures its components and clarifies the functions of each actor. Finally, there are critical activities for each actor in each phase of the agreement's progress.

CONCLUSIONS

The participation of all actors and the clarification of critical elements and tasks are fundamental for the optimal development of the experiences.

Innovative pharmaceutical pricing agreements in five European markets: A survey of stakeholder attitudes and experience

BACKGROUND

Innovative pricing agreements for medicines have been used in European markets for more than 20 years, and offer an opportunity for payers and pharmaceutical companies to align on value, optimise speed to patients, and share risk. Developing successful agreements requires alignment between key stakeholders, yet there is a lack of summative data on how current innovative agreements are used in the real-world (e.g. the level of realised access to medicines, and rebates and discounts, which are often non-transparent).

METHODS

This research used a web-based survey of payer stakeholders to determine what kinds of innovative agreements are currently used, anticipated future usage, attitudes, and drivers of adoption. Participants included national and regional payers (or former payers) and hospital-level decision makers.

RESULTS

Sixty-six payers completed the survey. Respondents expected that the use of innovative pricing agreements will remain the same or increase in the future. Overall, they felt there is a positive attitude towards new schemes, and that innovative agreements are likely to be used when they reduce total costs or reduce uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Given payer expectations, pharmaceutical companies should continue to take a role in ensuring that they have sufficient capacity to support payers in the design and implementation of innovative pricing agreements.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

OBJECTIVES

Australia relies on managed entry agreements (MEAs) for many medicines added to the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Previous studies of Australian MEAs examined public domain documents and were not able to provide a comprehensive assessment of the types and operation of MEAs. This study used government documents approved for release to examine the implementation and administration of MEAs implemented January 2012 to May 2016.

METHODS

We accessed documents for medicines with MEAs on the PBS between January 2012 and May 2016. Data were extracted on Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC), type of MEA (financial, financial with outcomes, outcomes, and subcategories within each group), implementation and administration methods, source of MEA recommendation, and type of economic analysis.

RESULTS

Of all medication indication pairs (MIPs) recommended for listing, one-third had MEAs implemented. Our study of eighty-seven MIPs had 170 MEAs in place. The Government's expert health technology assessment (HTA) committee recommended MEAs for 90 percent of the eighty-seven MIPs. A total of 81 percent of MEAs were simple financial agreements: the majority either discounts (32 percent) or reimbursement caps (43 percent). Outcome-based MEAs were least common (5 percent). Ninety-two percent of MEAs were implemented and operated through legal agreements. Approximately half of the MIPs were listed on the basis of accepted claims of cost-minimization. Forty-nine percent of medicines were in ATC L group.

CONCLUSION

Advice from HTA evaluations strongly influences the implementation of ways to manage uncertainties while providing access to medicines. The government relied primarily on simple financial agreements for the managed entry of medicines for which there were perceived risks.

USING CLAIMS DATA FOR EVIDENCE GENERATION IN MANAGED ENTRY AGREEMENTS

OBJECTIVES

This study assesses the use of routinely collected claims data for managed entry agreements (MEA) in the illustrative context of German statutory health insurance (SHI) funds.

METHODS

Based on a nonsystematic literature review, the data needs of different MEA were identified. A value-based typology to classify MEA on the basis of these data needs was developed. The typology is oriented toward health outcomes and utilization and costs, key components of a new technology's value. For each MEA type, the suitability of claims data in establishing evidence of the novel technology's value in routine care was systematically assessed. Assessment criteria were data availability, completeness, timeliness, confidentiality, reliability, and validity.

RESULTS

Claims data are better suited to MEA addressing uncertainty regarding the utilization and costs of a novel technology in routine care. In schemes where safety aspects or clinical effectiveness are assessed, the role of claims data is limited because clinical information is not included in sufficient detail.

CONCLUSIONS

The suitability of claims data depends on the source of uncertainty and, in consequence, the outcome measures chosen in the agreements. In all schemes, the validity of claims data should be judged with caution as data are collected for billing purposes. This framework may support manufacturers and payers in selecting the most suitable contract type and agreeing on contract conditions. More research is necessary to validate these results and to address remaining medical, economic, legal, and ethical questions of using claims data for MEA.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force

There is a significant and growing interest among both payers and producers of medical products for agreements that involve a "pay-for-performance" or "risk-sharing" element. These payment schemes-called "performance-based risk-sharing arrangements" (PBRSAs)-involve a plan by which the performance of the product is tracked in a defined patient population over a specified period of time and the amount or level of reimbursement is based on the health and cost outcomes achieved. There has always been considerable uncertainty at product launch about the ultimate real-world clinical and economic performance of new products, but this appears to have increased in recent years. PBRSAs represent one mechanism for reducing this uncertainty through greater investment in evidence collection while a technology is used within a health care system. The objective of this Task Force report was to set out the standards that should be applied to "good practices"-both research and operational-in the use of a PBRSA, encompassing questions around the desirability, design, implementation, and evaluation of such an arrangement. This report provides practical recommendations for the development and application of state-of-the-art methods to be used when considering, using, or reviewing PBRSAs. Key findings and recommendations include the following. Additional evidence collection is costly, and there are numerous barriers to establishing viable and cost-effective PBRSAs: negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation costs can be substantial. For good research practice in PBRSAs, it is critical to match the appropriate study and research design to the uncertainties being addressed. Good governance processes are also essential. The information generated as part of PBRSAs has public good aspects, bringing ethical and professional obligations, which need to be considered from a policy perspective. The societal desirability of a particular PBRSA is fundamentally an issue as to whether the cost of additional data collection is justified by the benefits of improved resource allocation decisions afforded by the additional evidence generated and the accompanying reduction in uncertainty. The ex post evaluation of a PBRSA should, however, be a multidimensional exercise that assesses many aspects, including not only the impact on long-term cost-effectiveness and whether appropriate evidence was generated but also process indicators, such as whether and how the evidence was used in coverage or reimbursement decisions, whether budget and time were appropriate, and whether the governance arrangements worked well. There is an important gap in the literature of structured ex post evaluation of PBRSAs. As an innovation in and of themselves, PBRSAs should also be evaluated from a long-run societal perspective in terms of their impact on dynamic efficiency (eliciting the optimal amount of innovation).

When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development? : a systematic review of NICE guidance

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to 'only in research' (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use ('approval with research' or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions.

METHODS

Draft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required.

RESULTS

In total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process.

CONCLUSION

NICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.

Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation : a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patient heterogeneity is the part of variability that can be explained by certain patient characteristics (e.g. age, disease stage). Population reimbursement decisions that acknowledge patient heterogeneity could potentially save money and increase population health. To date, however, economic evaluations pay only limited attention to patient heterogeneity. The objective of the present paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge regarding patient heterogeneity within economic evaluation of healthcare programmes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify methodological papers on the topic of patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation. Data were obtained using a keyword search of the PubMed database and manual searches. Handbooks were also included. Relevant data were extracted regarding potential sources of patient heterogeneity, in which of the input parameters of an economic evaluation these occur, methods to acknowledge patient heterogeneity and specific concerns associated with this acknowledgement.

RESULTS

A total of 20 articles and five handbooks were included. The relevant sources of patient heterogeneity (demographics, preferences and clinical characteristics) and the input parameters where they occurred (baseline risk, treatment effect, health state utility and resource utilization) were combined in a framework. Methods were derived for the design, analysis and presentation phases of an economic evaluation. Concerns related mainly to the danger of false-positive results and equity issues.

CONCLUSION

By systematically reviewing current knowledge regarding patient heterogeneity within economic evaluations of healthcare programmes, we provide guidance for future economic evaluations. Guidance is provided on which sources of patient heterogeneity to consider, how to acknowledge them in economic evaluation and potential concerns. The improved acknowledgement of patient heterogeneity in future economic evaluations may well improve the efficiency of healthcare.

Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis, revisited

We aim to establish whether it is ever appropriate to conduct cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) rather than cost-effectiveness analysis.We perform a literature review to examine how the use of CMA has changed since Briggs & O'Brien announced its death in 2001. Examples of simulated and trial data are presented: firstly to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of CMA in the context of non-inferiority trials and those finding no significant difference in efficacy and secondly to assess whether CMA gives biased results.We show that CMA is still used and will bias measures of uncertainty, causing overestimation or underestimation of the value of information and the probability that treatment is cost-effective. Although bias will be negligible for non-inferiority studies comparing treatments that differ enormously in cost, it is generally necessary to collect and analyse data on costs and efficacy (including utilities) to assess this bias. Cost-effectiveness analysis (including evaluation of the joint distribution of costs and benefits) is almost always required to avoid biased estimation of uncertainty. The remit of CMA in trial-based economic evaluation is therefore even narrower than previously thought, suggesting that CMA is not only dead but should also be buried.

Financial risk-sharing in updating the National List of Health Services in Israel: stakeholders' perceived interests

OBJECTIVES

Risk-sharing is being considered by many health care systems to address the financial risk associated with the adoption of new technologies. We explored major stakeholders' views toward the potential implementation of a financial risk-sharing mechanism regarding budget-impact estimates for adding new technologies to the Israeli National List of Health Services. According to our proposed scheme, health plans will be partially compensated by technology sponsors if the actual use of a technology is substantially higher than what was projected and health plans will refund the government for budgets that were not fully utilized.

METHODS

By using a semi-structured protocol, we interviewed major stakeholders involved in the process of updating the National List of Health Services (N = 31). We inquired into participants' views toward our proposed risk-sharing mechanism, whether the proposed scheme would achieve its purpose, its feasibility of implementation, and their opinion on the other stakeholders' incentives.

RESULTS

Participants' considerations were classified into four main areas: financial, administrative/managerial, impact on patients' health, and influence on public image. Most participants agreed that the conceptual risk-sharing scheme will improve the accuracy of early budget estimates and were in favor of the proposed scheme, although Ministry of Finance officials tended to object to it.

CONCLUSIONS

The successful implementation of risk-sharing schemes depends mainly on their perception as a win-win situation by all stakeholders. The perception exposed by our participants that risk-sharing can be a tool for improving the accuracy of early budget-impact estimates and the challenges pointed by them are relevant to other health care systems also and should be considered when implementing similar schemes.

Translating comparative effectiveness research into clinical practice: the UK experience

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is not new but its potential to improve the effectiveness of healthcare has not yet been exploited in the US. Other countries such as the UK have more experience of this. Key points of the UK experience are summarized here and some possible pointers for the US are drawn. These include the following: how to go beyond the evidence and apply judgements to make recommendations with authority and in a timely manner; how to implement these recommendations; how to identify suitable topics; and how to be open and transparently fair to all stakeholders. The quality of the science of CER is key but this needs developing, and not just in biomedical or statistical terms but also in how to understand public expectations, and how to implement its recommendations. A key issue is the role of health economics, which seems to have been marginalized by the CER legislation, but perhaps this is more apparent than real. Clearly this is a matter for much further debate. It is hard to see how CER can deliver its potential without active consideration of both benefits and costs. Although other countries have more experience of this than does the US, the context for such work is always very specific and the US will have to find its own way, while trying to avoid some of the errors made elsewhere.

When to wait for more evidence? Real options analysis in proton therapy

PURPOSE

Trends suggest that cancer spending growth will accelerate. One method for controlling costs is to examine whether the benefits of new technologies are worth the extra costs. However, especially new and emerging technologies are often more costly, while limited clinical evidence of superiority is available. In that situation it is often unclear whether to adopt the new technology now, with the risk of investing in a suboptimal therapy, or to wait for more evidence, with the risk of withholding patients their optimal treatment. This trade-off is especially difficult when it is costly to reverse the decision to adopt a technology, as is the case for proton therapy. Real options analysis, a technique originating from financial economics, assists in making this trade-off.

METHODS

We examined whether to adopt proton therapy, as compared to stereotactic body radiotherapy, in the treatment of inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Three options are available: adopt without further research; adopt and undertake a trial; or delay adoption and undertake a trial. The decision depends on the expected net gain of each option, calculated by subtracting its total costs from its expected benefits.

RESULTS

In The Netherlands, adopt and trial was found to be the preferred option, with an optimal sample size of 200 patients. Increase of treatment costs abroad and costs of reversal altered the preferred option.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that real options analysis provides a transparent method of weighing the costs and benefits of adopting and/or further researching new and expensive technologies.

New technologies and surgical innovation: five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department

There is pressure for surgical departments to introduce new and innovative health technologies in an evidence-based manner while ensuring that they are safe and effective and can be managed with available resources. A local health technology assessment (HTA) program was developed to systematically integrate research evidence with local operational management information and to make recommendations for subsequent decision by the departmental executive committee about whether and under what conditions the technology will be used. The authors present a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of this program as used by the Department of Surgery & Surgical Services in the Calgary Health Region over a 5-year period from December 2005 to December 2010. Of the 68 technologies requested, 15 applications were incomplete and dropped, 12 were approved, 3 were approved for a single case on an urgent/emergent basis, 21 were approved for "clinical audit" for a restricted number of cases with outcomes review, 14 were approved for research use only, and 3 were referred to additional review bodies. Subsequent outcome reports resulted in at least 5 technologies being dropped for failure to perform. Decisions based on local HTA program recommendations were rarely "yes" or "no." Rather, many technologies were given restricted approval with full approval contingent on satisfying certain conditions such as clinical outcomes review, training protocol development, or funding. Thus, innovation could be supported while ensuring safety and effectiveness. This local HTA program can be adapted to a variety of settings and can help bridge the gap between evidence and practice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Breaking up is hard to do: the economic impact of provisional funding contingent upon evidence development

Funding contingent upon evidence development (FED) has recently been the subject of some considerable debate in the literature but relatively little has been made of its economic impact. We argue that FED has the potential to shorten the lag between innovation and access but may also (i) crowd-out more valuable interventions in situations in which there is a fixed dedicated budget; or (ii) lead to a de facto increase in the funding threshold and increased expenditure growth in situations in which the programme budget is open-ended. Although FED would typically entail periodic review of provisional or interim listings, it may prove difficult to withdraw funding even at cost/QALY ratios well in excess of current listing thresholds. Further consideration of the design and implementation of FED processes is therefore required to ensure that its introduction yields net benefits over existing processes.

Bridging trial and decision: a checklist to frame health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions

OBJECTIVE

Health technology assessments (HTAs) intend to inform real-world decisions. They often draw on data from explanatory trials and hence are not always applicable to the decision problem. HTAs may therefore not meet the needs of decision makers. Our objective was to develop and apply a checklist to: 1) systematically frame HTAs in a way that they are applicable to the decision problem; and 2) assess if a decision problem can be informed by an available HTA.

METHODS

We reviewed published literature to identify factors that should be considered when framing HTAs for resource allocation decisions. The checklist was finalized in collaboration with clinicians and policy makers. We applied the checklist to the economic evaluation of trastuzumab in early breast cancer. We defined a reference case and for each study, retrieved through a systematic review, we examined if each factor was explicitly considered.

RESULTS

A checklist was developed with 11 factors (e.g., clinical practice, consequences, and patient use). In the case of trastuzumab, most factors were considered by the 11 retrieved economic evaluations. Two factors, being the inclusion of all relevant comparators and professional use, were considered by none of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a comprehensive checklist with 11 factors to frame HTAs and to assess the applicability of HTAs to resource allocation decisions. Economic evaluations on trastuzumab considered some of these factors, but overlooked others. The proposed checklist assists in systematically considering all factors in developing the conceptual model of an HTA, to make HTAs better reflect the decision problem.

What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?

BACKGROUND

To ensure rapid access to new potentially beneficial health technologies, obtain best value for money, and ensure affordability, healthcare payers are adopting a range of innovative reimbursement approaches that may be called Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs).

METHODS

The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum sought to identify why MEAs might be used, issues associated with implementation and develop principles for their use. A 2-day deliberative workshop discussed key papers, members' experiences, and collectively addressed four policy questions that resulted in this study.

RESULTS

MEAs are used to give access to new technologies where traditional reimbursement is deemed inappropriate. Three different forms of MEAs have been identified: management of budget impact, management of uncertainty relating to clinical and/or cost-effectiveness, and management of utilization to optimize performance. The rationale for using these approaches and their advantages and disadvantages differ. However, all forms of MEA should take the form of a formal written agreement among stakeholders, clearly identifying the rationale for the agreement, aspects to be assessed, methods of data collection and review, and the criteria for ending the agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

MEAs should only be used when HTA identifies issues or concerns about key outcomes and/or costs and/or organizational/budget impacts that are material to a reimbursement decision. They provide patient access and can be useful to manage technology diffusion and optimize use. However, they are administratively complex and may be difficult to negotiate and their effectiveness has yet to be evaluated.

Access with evidence development: an approach to introducing promising new technologies into healthcare

The rapid development of new health technologies for which there is limited, but promising, evidence has resulted in a daunting challenge - to provide care that meets population health needs and optimizes patient outcomes, demonstrates an efficient use of healthcare resources, and upholds basic principles of equity, access, and choice. In this paper, we introduce 'Access with Evidence Development' as a possible mechanism for addressing this challenge and discuss its application to the "Zamboni procedure" for Multiple Sclerosis.

Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers

Background

There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes.

Methods

Aliterature review was undertaken to identify existing schemes supplemented with additional internal documents or web-based references known to the authors. This was combined with the extensive knowledge of health authority personnel from 14 different countries and locations involved with these schemes.

Results and discussion

A large number of 'risk sharing' schemes with pharmaceuticals are in existence incorporating both financial-based models and performance-based/outcomes-based models. In view of this, a new logical definition is proposed. This is "risk sharing' schemes should be considered as agreements concluded by payers and pharmaceutical companies to diminish the impact on payers' budgets for new and existing schemes brought about by uncertainty and/or the need to work within finite budgets". There are a number of concerns with existing schemes. These include potentially high administration costs, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and whether health authorities will end up funding an appreciable proportion of a new drug's development costs. In addition, there is a paucity of published evaluations of existing schemes with pharmaceuticals.

Conclusion

We believe there are only a limited number of situations where 'risk sharing' schemes should be considered as well as factors that should be considered by payers in advance of implementation. This includes their objective, appropriateness, the availability of competent staff to fully evaluate proposed schemes as well as access to IT support. This also includes whether systematic evaluations have been built into proposed schemes.

Access with evidence development: the US experience

The concept of access with evidence development (AED), also known as 'coverage with evidence development' in the Medicare programme, has long been discussed as a policy option for ensuring more appropriate use of new technologies in the US. This article provides a comprehensive overview of more than 10 years of US experience with AED, both in the public and private healthcare sectors. Beginning with a discussion of the successes of private plans' conditional coverage for high-density chemotherapy for autologous bone marrow transplants for metastatic breast cancer and Medicare's conditional coverage of lung-volume-reduction surgery in the 1990s, the article moves on to describe how Medicare worked to codify AED as one of its coverage policy options in the early part of this decade. More recent private and public sector initiatives are also discussed, including an overview of barriers to implementing AED. Despite the complexity of political, financial and ethical issues faced in implementation, AED is now a permanent fixture of US coverage policy. Future initiatives within the Medicare programme and with private payers in the US are much more likely to succeed by relying upon the simple but consequential principles laid out at a Summit convened in Banff, Alberta, Canada in 2009 and presented in another article in this issue.