Healthcare Systems across Europe and the US: The Managed Entry Agreements Experience

The impact of EU public procurement regulations on tenders in Spain: a study with adalimumab

Introduction

Pharmaceutical spending accounts for a significant portion of public healthcare budgets. To manage these costs, EU countries implement various cost-containment policies, including competitive tendering for pharmaceuticals. This study examines the impact of EU public procurement regulations on medication procurement practices.

Methods

A search for all published tenders of adalimumab in Spain from 2018 to 2024 in the Spanish Public Sector Procurement Database, a period that coincides with the implementation of European legislation and the emergence of adalimumab biosimilars. All available documentation for each tender was reviewed, including the tender offer, technical specifications, specific administrative clauses, appointments of evaluation commissions, supporting memorandum, and evaluation reports.

Results and Discussion

Our findings reveal substantial price reductions following the introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, yet highlight significant variability in tender criteria and practices across different regions. Despite adherence to EU directives, the inconsistent application of economic and non-economic factors and an erratic criteria concerning price undermine the intended balance of quality and cost, complicating procurement processes and potentially affecting the availability of a given treatment for patients.

A scoping review of the role of managed entry agreements in upcoming drugs for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: learning from the case of spinal muscular atrophy

Introduction: The therapeutic options for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are encouraging. However, there is currently no cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The clinical and economic uncertainty surrounding innovative treatments for rare neurodegenerative diseases makes it necessary to understand managed entry agreements (MEAs). The aim of this study was to review whether models of MEAs in SMA could be extrapolated to ALS. Methods: We performed a scoping review with information on MEAs on SMA in Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Lyfegen Library, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Results: We found 45 results in WOS and PubMed. After an initial survey, 10 were reviewed to assess eligibility, and three were selected. We obtained 44 results from Lyfegen Library, and three results each from NICE and CADTH. Conclusion: The main objective of MEAs is to reduce uncertainty in the financing of drugs with a high budgetary impact and clinical concerns, as is the case with drugs for SMA and ALS. While the information available on MEAs in SMA is scarce, some conceptual models are publicly available. MEAs for long-term treatments for SMA could be used for the design of MEAs in ALS because of their similarities in economic and clinical uncertainty.

Socioeconomic Determinants of Initiating Neuromodulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Neuromodulation is an effective treatment for chronic pain; however, socioeconomic differences may influence decision-making to initiate this therapy. This review investigated potential differences in accessibility of neuromodulation for patients with chronic pain due to socioeconomic determinants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four electronic databases were used for this systematic review: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023426035).

RESULTS

The initial database search identified a total of 1118 unique studies, of which 36 were eventually included in the systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, six studies reported on education, 24 on employment status, ten on insurance, five on household income, and three on miscellaneous topics. Neuromodulation seems accessible for patients with different education levels and different types of insurance. Additionally, it is not restricted to patients who are (un)employed. When comparing patients who initiated neuromodulation with those who did not, a significantly higher number of patients in the top quartile for education were found in the group without neuromodulation. Regarding insurance, inconclusive evidence was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Although neuromodulation was accessible for patients with varying levels of socioeconomic determinants, disparities were noted. When comparing the socioeconomic profiles of patients who receive neuromodulation and those who do not, education levels differ. Health-related inequality should be carefully monitored in chronic pain management with neuromodulation to ensure that potential disparities do not increase.

Trends in Triptan Usage in Korea: A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Migraine presents a significant global health problem that emphasizes the need for efficient acute treatment options. Triptans, introduced in the early 1990s, have substantially advanced migraine management owing to their effectiveness compared to that of traditional medications. However, data on triptan use in migraine management from Asian countries, where migraines tend to have milder symptoms than those in European and North American countries, are limited. This study aimed to identify the trends in triptan usage in Korea.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort spanning from 2002 to 2019. Patients with migraine were identified using the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes, and triptan prescriptions were evaluated annually in terms of quantity, pills per patient, and associated costs. The distribution of triptan prescriptions across different medical specialties was also examined. Factors contributing to the odds of triptan use were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2019, the total number of triptan tablets, prescriptions, and patients using triptans increased by 24.0, 17.1, and 13.6 times, respectively, with sumatriptan being the most frequently prescribed type of triptan. Additionally, the number of prescriptions and related costs have consistently increased despite stable pricing because of government regulation. By 2019, only approximately one-tenth of all patients with migraines had been prescribed triptans, although there was a notable increase in prescriptions over the study period. These prescription patterns varied according to the physician's specialty. After adjusting for patient-specific factors including age and sex, the odds of prescribing triptans were higher for neurologists than for internal medicine physicians (odds ratio 2.875, P < 0.001), while they were lower for general practitioners (odds ratio 0.220, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings revealed an increasing trend in triptan use among individuals with migraines in Korea, aligning with global usage patterns. Despite these increases, the overall prescription rate of triptans remains low, indicating potential underutilization and highlighting the need for improved migraine management strategies across all medical fields. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the use of triptans in treating migraines effectively.

A Meta-Analysis of the Mortality and the Prevalence of Burn Complications in Western Populations

Management of burn injuries is complex, with highly variable outcomes occurring among different populations. This meta-analysis aims to assess the outcomes of burn therapy in North American and European adults, specifically mortality and complications, to guide further therapeutic advances. A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane was performed. Random-effect meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to assess the overall prevalence of the defined outcomes. In total, 54 studies were included, pooling 60 269 adult patients. A total of 53 896 patients were in North America (NA, 89.4%), and 6373 were in Europe (10.6%). Both populations experienced similar outcomes. The overall pooled prevalence of mortality was 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%) for moderate burns, 20% (95% CI, 12%-29%) for severe burns in the NA region, and 22% (95% CI, 16%-28%) for severe burns in Europe. Infectious complications were the most common across both regions. European studies showed an infection rate for patients with moderate and severe burns at 8% and 76%, respectively, while NA studies had rates of 35% and 54%. Acute kidney injury (39% vs 37%) and shock (29% vs 35%) were the next most common complications in European and NA studies, respectively. The length of stay was 27.52 days for patients with severe burns in Europe and 31.02 days for patients with severe burns in NA. Burn outcomes are similar between Western populations. While outcomes are reasonably good overall, infectious complications remain high. These findings encourage the development of further therapeutic strategies disclosing respective costs to enable cost/efficiency evaluations in burn management.

Welcoming the future: embracing novel technologies for a progressive health system

BACKGROUND

Novel technologies offer great possibilities for improving patient care, but their adoption varies across different European countries. To successfully integrate these advancements, it is crucial to prioritize patient interests and avoid getting side-tracked by issues that seek to preserve established positions or neglect collaboration. Next-generation sequencing and liquid biopsy in cancer patients hold substantial potential for early diagnosis and reducing suffering, but only if they are effectively implemented into routine health care.

METHODS

An examination of the infrastructure and governance requirements in European member states was conducted to identify significant gaps and discrepancies in the readiness to capitalize on the benefits that these technologies can provide.

RESULTS

These disparities highlight the existing inequalities and missed opportunities within the European Union (EU), which are further exacerbated by varying economic statuses.

CONCLUSIONS

As Europe undergoes a comprehensive review of its health policies and public spending between 2024 and 2025, it is an opportune time to prioritize ensuring that patients can access the advancements offered by technology and science.

Paving the path for implementation of clinical genomic sequencing globally: Are we ready?

Despite the emerging evidence in recent years, successful implementation of clinical genomic sequencing (CGS) remains limited and is challenged by a range of barriers. These include a lack of standardized practices, limited economic assessments for specific indications, limited meaningful patient engagement in health policy decision-making, and the associated costs and resource demand for implementation. Although CGS is gradually becoming more available and accessible worldwide, large variations and disparities remain, and reflections on the lessons learned for successful implementation are sparse. In this commentary, members of the Global Economics and Evaluation of Clinical Genomics Sequencing Working Group (GEECS) describe the global landscape of CGS in the context of health economics and policy and propose evidence-based solutions to address existing and future barriers to CGS implementation. The topics discussed are reflected as two overarching themes: (1) system readiness for CGS and (2) evidence, assessments, and approval processes. These themes highlight the need for health economics, public health, and infrastructure and operational considerations; a robust patient- and family-centered evidence base on CGS outcomes; and a comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.

Insights into insurance coverage for digital therapeutics: A qualitative study of US payer perspectives

BACKGROUND

In the last decade there has been an increase in the development and marketing of digital therapeutic (DTx) products aiming to prevent, manage, or treat a medical disorder or disease. Health insurance coverage for these products is not well established, and payers are facing increasing pressure to include these products as a covered benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To examine factors and characteristics that could drive health insurance coverage of DTx products from US payers' and coverage decision-makers' perspectives.

METHODS

This was a qualitative noninterventional, cross-sectional study conducted from August 2022 to October 2022. Virtual focus group meetings with pharmacy benefit managers/directors or medical directors representing a range of health insurance organizations were held following a semistructured interview guide. Convenience and snowball sampling techniques were used to identify participants. Transcripts were coded and analyzed with Atlas.ti software to identify common themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Five focus group meetings and 1 individual interview were held from August to October 2022. Participants (n = 22) were mostly pharmacists (n = 18, 85%) with more than 15 years of experience (n = 18, 85%). Some participants indicated that DTx products for diabetes (n = 6, 29%), mental/behavioral health (n = 3, 14%), and substance abuse disorders (n = 3, 14%) were already covered by their organizations. The topics generating the most comments grouped by code were issues around the evidence for DTx (67 unique comments) and barriers for coverage (60 unique comments). Participants indicated they want to have evidence of effectiveness that is similar to traditional pharmaceutical products. Barriers for coverage included a need to revise benefit policies, exclusion of nonprescription products, and mechanisms for billing. DTx products with an indication for mental/behavioral health were viewed as most likely to be reimbursed. Coverage of DTx products may occur under either the pharmacy or medical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care payers stated that evidence of effectiveness was a necessary condition for health insurance coverage of DTx products. Given these are relatively new in health care, payers had more questions than answers regarding how these products will be integrated into health benefits.

Revitalizing neurosurgical frontiers: The EANS frontiers in neurosurgery committee's strategic framework

Introduction

The field of neurosurgery faces challenges with the increasing involvement of other medical specialties in areas traditionally led by neurosurgeons. This paper examines the implications of this development for neurosurgical practice and patient care, with a focus on specialized areas like pain management, peripheral nerve surgery, and stereotactic radiosurgery.

Research question

To assess the implications of the expanded scope of other specialties for neurosurgical practice and to consider the response of the EANS Frontiers in Neurosurgery Committee to these challenges.

Materials and methods

Analysis of recent trends in neurosurgery, including the shift in various procedures to other specialties, demographic challenges, and the emergence of minimally invasive techniques. This analysis draws on relevant literature and the initiatives of the Frontiers in Neurosurgery Committee.

Results

We explore a possible decrease in neurosurgical involvement in certain areas, which may have implications for patient care and access to specialized neurosurgical interventions. The Frontiers in Neurosurgery Committee's role in addressing these concerns is highlighted, particularly in terms of training, education, research, and networking for neurosurgeons, especially those early in their careers.

Discussion and conclusion

The potential decrease in neurosurgical involvement in certain specialties warrants attention. This paper emphasizes the importance of carefully considered responses by neurosurgical societies, such as the EANS, to ensure neurosurgeons continue to play a vital role in managing neurological diseases. Emphasis on ongoing education, integration of minimally invasive techniques, and multidisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining the field's competence and quality in patient care.

Timely, Cheap, or Risk-Free? The Effect of Regulation on the Price and Availability of New Drugs

The high level of regulation of innovative drugs on the market, which is necessary to protect consumers, produces important effects on drug availability and innovation. In public healthcare systems, the need to curb prices comes from expenditure considerations. The aim of price regulation is to obtain a more equitable allocation of the value of an innovative drug between industries and patients (by reducing prices to make drugs more affordable), but it may also reduce access. (In the listing process, the industry may find it more convenient to limit commercialisation to profitable subgroups of patients.) Furthermore, with the advent of personalised medicine, there is another important dimension that has to be considered, namely, incentives to invest in drug personalisation. In this paper, we review and discuss the impact of different pricing rules on the expenditure and availability of new drugs.

The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway

Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system. Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021-2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared. Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs. Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.

Recovery of suspended reimbursements of high-cost drugs subjected to monitoring registries and negotiated agreements (MEAs): a tool for governance and clinical appropriateness in the Italian reality

The Monitoring Registries and negotiated agreements (MEAs) established by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) exemplify a pinnacle of excellence in Italian healthcare governance, playing a pivotal role in achieving economic sustainability and ensuring judicious allocation of financial resources. Within a local territorial health company catering to a populace of around 1 million individuals in Italy, an assessment of the meticulous implementation of all negotiation procedures was carried out by scrutinizing the monitoring records. This examination served to pinpoint and address potential issues in the platform management executed by healthcare professionals, including physicians and pharmacists. Such issues had the potential to result in economic setbacks owing to the non-reimbursement from pharmaceutical companies. Through diligent verification undertaken by the pharmacists, a financial recovery amounting to approximately €579,443.4 for the fiscal year 2022 was achieved. The essence of this analysis is to underscore how collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts between physicians and pharmacists yield tangible economic advantages. This collaborative approach ensures a streamlined healthcare system characterized by efficiency, devoid of unnecessary expenditures, and marked by the highest standards of care appropriateness, ultimately serving the best interests of the citizens.

Stakeholder Insights into Czech Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements: Potential for Transformative Change in Pharmaceutical Access?

Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) play a pivotal role in addressing the challenges arising from escalating prices of innovative medical technologies, especially in areas like oncology, immunology, and rare diseases. Among MEAs, Performance-Based MEAs (PB MEAs) and Outcome-Based MEAs (OB MEAs) stand out as innovative strategies. This study examines the adoption of PB MEAs in the Czech Republic post a 2022 legislative change. Interviews with key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Health, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and patient groups, were conducted to explore perceptions and challenges. Stakeholders expressed concerns about legislation completeness, data quality, transparency, and methodology. Interestingly, pharmaceutical companies were less concerned about transparency and methodology, likely due to their multinational experience. Despite legislative progress, challenges persist, especially in data infrastructure, risk-sharing perceptions, and stakeholder readiness. Addressing these issues requires collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and payers. Patient involvement, though mandated, remains limited, potentially due to a lack of awareness. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive transformation beyond legislation for a successful PB MEA implementation. Trust, technical infrastructure, and data availability are crucial, necessitating a holistic approach. It contributes to the global discourse on PB MEAs, stressing the adjustment of financial frameworks, embracing value-based healthcare principles, and ensuring high-quality health data metrics. A more holistic, value-based MEA approach could reshape pharmaceutical reimbursement in the future.

The Italian experience with the use of monitoring registers attached to negotiated agreements (MEAs) of the Italian Medicines Agency is a tool for governance and clinical appropriateness

The use of monitoring registers with annexed negotiation agreements (MEAs) of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) are the pillar of Italian healthcare governance to guarantee the correct allocation of economic healthcare resources. In Italy, an analysis was conducted in the context of a local health authority where all negotiation activities were implemented to verify the amount of reimbursements that can be recovered through the use of all available procedures on the monitoring registers. The purpose of this analysis was to highlight any criticalities which, if not properly addressed by doctors and pharmacists, can lead to considerable financial loss. Correct verification by the hospital pharmacy resulted in an economic recovery of approximately EUR 579,443.40 for the year 2022 and EUR 682,225.30 in the first 9 months of 2023. This analysis is intended to highlight how effective collaboration between doctors and pharmacists can lead to clear economic advantages with an efficient health system to the total benefit of citizens.

The Imperative of Regulation: The Co-creation of a Medical and Non-medical US Opioid Crisis

The ravaging COVID-19 pandemic has almost pushed into oblivion the fact that the United States is still struggling with an immense addiction crisis. Drug overdose deaths rose from 16,849 in 1999 to nearly 110000-of which an estimated 75,000 involved opioids-in 2022. On a yearly basis, the opioid casualty rate is higher than the combined number of victims of firearm violence and car accidents. The Covid-19 epidemic might have helped to worsen the addiction crisis by stimulating drug use among adolescents and diverting national attention to yet another public health crisis. In the past decade the sharpest increase in deaths occurred among those related to fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (illicitly manufactured, synthetic opioids of greater potency). In the first opioid crisis wave (1998-2010), opioid-related deaths were mainly associated with prescription opioids such as Oxycontin (oxycodone hydrochloride). The mass prescription of these narcotic drugs did anything but control the pervasive phenomenon of 'addiction on prescription' that played such an important role in the emergence and robustness of the US opioid crisis. Using a long-term drug lifecycle analytic approach in this article I will show how opioid producing pharmaceutical companies created a medical market for opioid painkillers. They thus fueled a consumer demand for potent opioid drugs that was eagerly capitalized on by criminal entrepreneurs and their international logistic networks. I will also point out the failure of US authorities to effectively respond to this crisis due to the gap between narcotic product regulation, regulation of marketing practices and the rise of a corporate dominated health care system. Ironically, this turned the most powerful geopolitical force in the war against drugs into its greatest victim. Due to formulary availability and regulatory barriers to accessibility European countries have been relatively protected against following suit the US opioid crisis.