Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation of Outcome-Based Spread Payments for High-Cost, One-Shot Curative Therapies

Illustrating the Financial Consequences of Outcome-Based Payment Models From a Payers Perspective: The Case of Autologous Gene Therapy Atidarsagene Autotemcel (Libmeldy®)

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies.

METHODS

Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated.

RESULTS

When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Towards ethical drug pricing: the European Orphan Genomic Therapies Fund

An increasing number of novel genomic therapies are expected to become available for patients with rare or ultra-rare diseases. However, the primary obstacle to equal patient access to these orphan genomic therapies are currently very high prices charged by manufacturers in the context of limited healthcare budgets. Taking into account ethical pricing theories, the paper proposes the implementation of a pricing infrastructure covering all European member states, which has the potential to promote distributive justice while maintaining the attractiveness of genomic therapy development.

Creating win-win-win situations with managed entry agreements? Prioritizing gene and cell therapies within the window of opportunity

Outcome-based reimbursement models are gaining attention for managing the clinical uncertainties and financial impact of gene and cell therapies. Little guidance exists on how such models can create win-win-win situations, benefiting health-care payers, health-technology developers and patients. Our innovative approach prospectively prioritizes therapies for which a 'window of opportunity' might occur through the analysis of health-technology assessments and product characteristics. Within this window, one size does not fit all, and depending on the extent of clinical uncertainty and potential added benefit levels, different win-win-win situations exist in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Dutch Horizon scanning data prioritized etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix) and mozafancogene autotemcel for their potential to benefit from outcome-based reimbursement models. These insights extend beyond gene and cell therapies, and could help to provide sustainable health care and patient access to innovative therapies.

Challenges for gene therapy in the financial sustainability of health systems: a scoping review

AIM

To review the available evidence about the strategies implemented or proposed for coverage or reimbursement for currently approved gene therapies.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to analyze the evidence published during the years 2016 to 2023. The main search criteria were coverage or reimbursement of gene therapy by healthcare systems. The eligible articles were those that described or proposed a financing model used to provide coverage in the various systems around the world.

RESULTS

The study identified 279 publications, and after removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 10 were included in the study. The results show that various financing models have been proposed, including subscription-based payment models, outcome-based payment models, and amortization strategies. However, several barriers to implementing these models were identified, such as deficiencies in informatics systems for data collection, changes in laws or regulations, the lack of accessible clinical endpoints and administrative costs.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides an overview of financing strategies for gene therapies. Gene therapies can cure rare or previously intractable diseases, but their high cost can make access difficult. Publishing experiences with these models can help evaluate their use and gather more evidence for their effectiveness.

Comparative policy analysis of national rare disease funding policies in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases pose immense challenges for healthcare systems due to their low prevalence, associated disabilities, and attendant treatment costs. Advancements in gene therapy, such as treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), have introduced novel therapeutic options, but the high costs, exemplified by Zolgensma® at US$2.1 million, present significant financial barriers. This scoping review aimed to compare the funding approaches for rare disease treatments across high-performing health systems in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), aiming to identify best practices and areas for future research.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley and ensuing recommendations, a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and grey literature from health department websites and leading national organizations dedicated to rare diseases in these countries was conducted. Countries selected for comparison were high-income countries with advanced economies and high-performing health systems: Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the UK, and the US. The inclusion criteria focused on studies detailing drug approval processes, reimbursement decisions and funding mechanisms, and published from 2010 to 2024.

RESULTS

Based on a thorough review of 18 published papers and grey literature, various strategies are employed by countries to balance budgetary constraints and access to rare disease treatments. Australia utilizes the Life Saving Drugs Program and risk-sharing agreements. Singapore depends on the Rare Disease Fund, which matches public donations. South Korea's National Health Insurance Service covers specific orphan drugs through risk-sharing agreements. The UK relies on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to evaluate treatments for cost-effectiveness, supported by the Innovative Medicines Fund. In the US, a combination of federal and state programs, private insurance and non-profit support is used.

CONCLUSION

Outcome-based risk-sharing agreements present a practical solution for managing the financial strain of costly treatments. These agreements tie payment to actual treatment efficacy, thereby distributing financial risk and promoting ongoing data collection. Countries should consider adopting and expanding these agreements to balance immediate expenses with long-term benefits, ultimately ensuring equitable access to crucial treatments for patients afflicted by rare diseases.

Importance of aligning the implementation of new payment models for innovative pharmaceuticals in European countries

INTRODUCTION

The uptake of complex technologies and platforms has resulted in several challenges in the pricing and reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals. To address these challenges, plenty of concepts have already been described in the scientific literature about innovative value judgment or payment models, which are either (1) remaining theoretical; or (2) applied only in pilots with limited impact on patient access; or (3) applied so heterogeneously in many different countries that it prevents the health care industry from meeting expectations of HTA bodies and health care payers in the evidence requirements or offerings in different jurisdictions.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides perspectives on how to reduce the heterogeneity of pharmaceutical payment models across European countries in five areas, including 1) extended evaluation frameworks, 2) performance-based risk-sharing agreements, 3) pooled procurement for low volume or urgent technologies, 4) alternative access schemes, and 5) delayed payment models for technologies with high upfront costs.

EXPERT OPINION

Whilst pricing and reimbursement decisions will remain a competence of EU member states, there is a need for alignment of European pharmaceutical payment model components in critical areas with the ultimate objective of improving the equitable access of European patients to increasingly complex pharmaceutical technologies.

Pricing and reimbursement mechanisms for advanced therapy medicinal products in 20 countries

Introduction: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are a type of therapies that, in some cases, hold great potential for patients without an effective current therapeutic approach but they also present multiple challenges to payers. While there are many theoretical papers on pricing and reimbursement (P&R) options, original empirical research is very scarce. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive international review of regulatory and P&R decisions taken for all ATMPs with centralized European marketing authorization in March 2022. Methods: A survey was distributed in July 2022 to representatives of 46 countries. Results: Responses were received from 20 countries out of 46 (43.5%). 14 countries reimbursed at least one ATMP. Six countries in this survey reimbursed no ATMPs. Conclusion: Access to ATMPs is uneven across the countries included in this study. This arises from regulatory differences, commercial decisions by marketing authorization holders, and the divergent assessment processes and criteria applied by payers. Moving towards greater equality of access will require cooperation between countries and stakeholders, for example, through the WHO Regional Office for Europe's Access to Novel Medicines Platform.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel Versus Blinatumomab in Children and Young Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Partitioned Survival Model to Assess the Impact of an Outcome-Based Payment Arrangement

OBJECTIVE

This research assesses the impact of an outcome-based payment arrangement (OBA) linking complete remission (CR) to survival as a means of maintaining cost-effectiveness for a chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used to model the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel versus blinatumomab in ALL from the Australian healthcare system perspective. A decision tree modeled different OBAs by funneling patients into a series of PSMs based on response. Outcomes were informed by individual patient data, while costs followed Australian treatment practices. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were combined to calculate a single incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in US dollars (2022) at a discount rate of 5% on costs and outcomes.

RESULTS

For the base case, incremental costs and benefit were $379,595 and 4.27 QALYs, giving an ICER of $88,979. The ICER was most sensitive to discount rate ($57,660-$75,081), "cure point" ($62,718-$116,206) and extrapolation method ($76,018-$94,049). OBAs had a modest effect on the ICER when response rates varied. A responder-only payment was the most effective arrangement for maintaining the ICER ($88,249-$89,434), although this option was associated with the greatest financial uncertainty. A split payment arrangement (payment on infusion followed by payment on response) reduced variability in the ICER ($82,650-$99,154) compared with a single, upfront payment ($77,599-$107,273).

CONCLUSION

OBAs had a modest impact on reducing cost-effectiveness uncertainty. The value of OBAs should be weighed against the additional resources needed to administer such arrangements, and importantly overall cost to government.

When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations-Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs

This study aimed to identify the current experiences with and future preferences for payment and reimbursement models for high-priced hospital therapies in the Netherlands, where the main barriers lie and assess how policy structures facilitate these models. A questionnaire was sent out to Dutch stakeholders (in)directly involved in payment and reimbursement agreements. The survey contained statements assessed with Likert scales, rankings and open questions. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thirty-nine stakeholders (out of 100) (in)directly involved with reimbursement decision-making completed the survey. Our inquiry showed that currently financial-based reimbursement models are applied most, especially discounts were perceived best due to their simplicity. For the future, outcome-based reimbursement models were preferred, particularly pay-for-outcome models. The main stated challenge for implementation was generating evidence in practice. According to the respondents, upfront payments are currently implemented most often, whereas delayed payment models are preferred to be applied more frequently in the future. Particularly payment-at-outcome-achieved models are preferred; however, they were stated as administratively challenging to arrange. The respondents were moderately satisfied with the payment and reimbursement system in the Netherlands, arguing that the transparency of the final agreements and mutual trust could be improved. These insights can provide stakeholders with future direction when negotiating and implementing innovative reimbursement and payment models. Attention should be paid to the main barriers that are currently perceived as hindering a more frequent implementation of the preferred models and how national policy structures can facilitate a successful implementation.

Outcome-based reimbursement in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

Delayed payment schemes in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East

The need for innovative payment models for health technologies with high upfront costs has emerged due to affordability concerns across the world. Early technology adopter countries have been experimenting with delayed payment schemes. Our objective included listing potential barriers for implementing delayed payment models and recommendations on how to address these barriers in lower income countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Middle East (ME). We conducted a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming about potential barriers and solutions to implement delayed payment models in these two regions. A draft list of recommendations was validated in a virtual workshop with payer experts from the two regions. Eight barriers were identified in 4 areas, including transaction costs and administrative burden, payment schedule, information technology and data infrastructure, and governance. Fifteen practical recommendations were prepared to address these barriers, including recommendations that are specific to lower income countries, and recommendations that can be applied more universally, but are more crucial in countries with severe budget constraints. Conclusions of this policy research can be considered as an initial step in a multistakeholder dialogue about implementing delayed payment schemes in CEE and ME countries.

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options

BACKGROUND

The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna®, Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Zynteglo®, Zolgensma® and Strimvelis®, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah® and Yescarta®. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX® was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM.

CONCLUSIONS

Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.

Critical Reflections on Reimbursement and Access of Advanced Therapies

Background: The health economic literature has questioned the cost-effectiveness and affordability of advanced therapies, proposed adjustments to value assessment frameworks, and discussed the use of outcome-based managed entry agreements and staggered payments in the last few years. The aim of this manuscript is to conduct a critical reflection on assessment criteria and access conditions for reimbursement of advanced therapies.

Methods: A narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature was conducted in April 2021 by searching PubMed; Google Scholar; policy and legislative documents; websites of health technology assessment agencies, advanced therapy organisations, governmental advanced therapy innovation programmes, consultancy agencies; ISPOR conference abstracts and presentations.

Results: Based on the available evidence, this manuscript argues that: a) advanced therapies can be cost-effective at high prices set by manufacturers; b) the economic evaluation framework adopted by many payers under-values these products; c) advanced therapies can be affordable and may not require spread payments; d) outcome-based managed entry agreements are theoretically attractive, but challenging in practice; e) the cost-effectiveness of advanced therapies depends on the outcome-based managed entry agreement and payment approach; f) there is a role for multinational collaborations to manage reimbursement and access of advanced therapies.

Conclusions: This manuscript shows that there is no single approach to reimbursement and access of advanced therapies. Instead, we support a more tailored assessment of health economic aspects of advanced therapies, which considers the heterogeneity of these products and their target populations.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements for devices and procedures in cardiac electrophysiology: an innovative perspective

There is an increasing pressure on demonstrating the value of medical interventions and medical technologies resulting in the proposal of new approaches for implementation in the daily practice of innovative treatments that might carry a substantial cost. While originally mainly adopted by pharmaceutical companies, in recent years medical technology companies have initiated novel value-based arrangements for using medical devices, in the form of 'outcomes-based contracts', 'performance-based contracts', or 'risk-sharing agreements'. These are all characterized by linking coverage, reimbursement, or payment for the innovative treatment to the attainment of pre-specified clinical outcomes. Risk-sharing agreements have been promoted also in the field of electrophysiology and offer the possibility to demonstrate the value of specific innovative technologies proposed in this rapidly advancing field, while relieving hospitals from taking on the whole financial risk themselves. Physicians deeply involved in the field of devices and technologies for arrhythmia management and invasive electrophysiology need to be prepared for involvement as stakeholders. This may imply engagement in the evaluation of risk-sharing agreements and specifically, in the process of assessment of technology performances or patient outcomes. Scientific Associations may have an important role in promoting the basis for value-based assessments, in promoting educational initiatives to help assess the determinants of the learning curve for innovative treatments, and in promoting large-scale registries for a precise assessment of patient outcomes and of specific technologies' performance.

Availability and Accessibility of Orphan Medicinal Products to Patients in Slovakia in the Years 2010-2019

Objective: Information about the access of Slovak patients to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in the literature is rather scarce. The main aim of the study was to analyze the accessibility and availability of OMPs to Slovak patients in the years 2010-2019. Methods: The analyzed OMPs were strictly defined according to the European definition. The date of marketing authorization together with its first appearance in the positive drug list was used to count the time to reach the national market. The data from the National Health Information Centre, the Ministry of Health, and health insurance companies were used as data sources of drug usage, expenditure, consumption, reimbursement of OMPs, as well as the total number of treated patients. Results: Out of the 167 OMPs on the European market, we identified 52% (87) OMPs which had any kind of costs recorded in Slovakia. Out of them, 62% (54) OMPs were directly present on the positive drug list. The remaining 33 OMPs were available on exception. The trend in accessibility and availability of OMPs in Slovakia between the years 2010 and 2019 was decreasing (57% OMPs in 2010 vs. 47% OMPs in 2019). The average time for an orphan medicinal product to reach the Slovak market was almost 4 years, 43.5 months [6-202 months]. Together, 10.4% (8 815 patients) out of the theoretical patients' estimation according to the prevalence in the orphan designation were treated with OMPs available in Slovakia. Conclusion: Presented data clearly show insufficient accessibility and availability of OMPs in Slovakia. Importance of clearly defined criteria for OMPs supporting patients and healthcare professionals' involvement in the final decision together with other measures such as social impact, improvement of patients' quality of life, society wide meaning, or no alternative treatment in the final decision is crucial for transparent and sustainable access to OMPs and innovative treatments in Slovakia.

Challenges in the market access of regenerative medicines, and implications for manufacturers and decision-makers: a systematic review

Aim: Regenerative medicines (RMs) are expected to transform the treatment paradigm of rare, life-threatening diseases, while substantial challenges impede its market access. This study aimed to present these challenges. Materials & methods: Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. Results: Uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs are most scrutinized. A new reference case for RMs is questionable, but examining impacts of study perspective, time horizon, discount rate and extrapolation methods on estimates is advised. Establishing reasonable prices of RMs requires increased transparency in the development costs and better values measurements. Outcome-based payments require considerable investments and potential legislative adjustments. Conclusion: Greater flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analyses of RMs is necessary. This comprehensive review may prompt more multi-stakeholder conversations to discuss the optimized strategy for value assessment, pricing and payment in order to accelerate the market access of RMs.

The Challenges of Outcomes-Based Contract Implementation for Medicines in Europe

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to outline the challenges of implementing outcomes-based contracts (OBCs) in Europe.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted, building on the searches of a previous systematic review and updating them for December 2017 until May 2021. The combined results were screened, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. All identified studies published in the English language that described specific OBC schemes for medicines in European countries were included. Insights into the challenges of OBCs were extracted and analysed to develop a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Ten articles from the previous systematic review matched our inclusion criteria, along with 14 articles from electronic searches. Analysis of these 24 articles and classification of the challenges revealed that there are multiple barriers that must be overcome if OBCs that benefit all stakeholders are going to be adopted widely across Europe. These challenges were grouped according to five key themes: negotiation framework; outcomes; data; administration and implementation; and laws and regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

If the promise of OBCs is to be fully realised in Europe, there remain major challenges that need to be overcome by all stakeholders working in partnership. The overlapping and interconnected nature of these challenges highlights the complexity of OBC arrangements.

Reinforcing Collaboration and Harmonization to Unlock the Potentials of Advanced Therapy Medical Products: Future Efforts Are Awaited From Manufacturers and Decision-Makers

Some advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) hold great promises for life-threatening diseases with high unmet needs. However, ATMPs are also associated with significant challenges in market access, which necessitates the joint efforts between all relevant stakeholders to navigate. In this review, we will elaborate on the importance of collaborations and harmonization across different stakeholders, to expedite the market access of promising ATMPs. Manufacturers of ATMPs should proactively establish collaborations with other stakeholders throughout the whole lifecycle of ATMPs, from early research to post-market activities. This covered engagements with (1) external developers (i.e., not-for-profit organizations and commercial players) to obtain complementary knowledge, technology, or infrastructures, (2) patient groups and healthcare providers to highlight their roles as active contributors, and (3) decision-makers, such as regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, and payers, to communicate the uncertainties in evidence package, where parallel consultation will be a powerful strategy. Harmonization between decision-makers is desired at (1) regulatory level, in terms of strengthening the international standardization of regulatory framework to minimize discrepancies in evidence requirements for market authorization, and (2) HTA level, in terms of enhancing alignments between regional and national HTA agencies to narrow inequity in patient access, and cross-border HTA cooperation to improve the quality and efficiency of HTA process. In conclusion, manufacturers and decision-makers shared the common goals to safeguard timely patient access to ATMPs. Collaboration and harmonization will be increasingly leveraged to enable the value delivery of ATMPs to all stakeholders.

Considering potential solutions for limitations and challenges in the health economic evaluation of gene therapies

INTRODUCTION

The limited evidence in the clinical trials of gene therapies (GTs) posed substantial challenges for a reliable health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides insights into the relationship between the background of diseases and the health economics assessment of GTs.Areas covered: The impacts of differentiated severity and unmet needs of genetic diseases, on the economic analysis of GTs, were discussed.Expert opinion: GTs offer a potential cure or significant clinical improvement, while limitations in clinical evidence constitute major obstacles for a robust assessment of clinical effectiveness and economic outcomes. This uncertainty may be balanced by the severity of the targeted condition and the associated unmet needs, thus leading to a relatively higher acceptance for GTs. Overtime, HTA agencies will become more demanding on comprehensive evidence of long-term effectiveness. With a growing number of GTs on the horizon, to what extent the unmet needs of previously devastating diseases will be fulfilled remain unclear. Nonetheless, comparative studies, either with a historical control group or existing treatments, will be necessary to demonstrate the additional benefits associated with GTs.

The use of innovative payment mechanisms for gene therapies in Europe and the USA

Innovative reimbursement mechanisms have long been considered potential solutions to the data uncertainty associated with one-off, high-value gene therapies that have long-term therapeutic potential, combined with limited supporting evidence at launch. The launches of increasing numbers of such gene therapies in Europe and the USA in the past 5 years provide valuable exemplars of how innovative reimbursement mechanisms are used by healthcare system decision makers in practice. This review details the use of such reimbursement schemes for recently launched gene therapies in key European countries and the USA, and shows that they are more widespread in Europe than in the USA. Although innovative payment schemes are increasingly used across countries, differences in healthcare system structures (e.g., single- vs multi-payer systems) and willingness to pay mean that decision makers in different countries have different incentives to manage uncertainties around long-term, real-world product value.