Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Steven Simoens⁴  Entela Xoxi¹  Caroline van der Meijden²  Paolo Siviero¹  Gustaf Befrits³  Francis Arickx⁵  Thomas Morel⁴ 

[1] Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy;Health Care Insurance Board (CVZ), Diemen, The Netherlands;Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV), Stockholm, Sweden;KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, O&N2 bus 521, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium;National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (RIZIV/INAMI), Brussels, Belgium

关键词: Performance;    Pricing;    Payers;    Health technology assessment;    Uncertainty;    Risk sharing;    Reimbursement;    Access;    Orphan medicinal products;    Orphan drugs;    Managed entry agreements;   

Others  :  863336
DOI  :  10.1186/1750-1172-8-198

 received in 2013-06-06, accepted in 2013-11-04,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

National payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches – called managed entry agreements (MEAs) – to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe.

Methods

To identify and describe MEAs, national health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions on OMPs across seven European countries were reviewed and their main characteristics extracted. To fill data gaps and validate the accuracy of the extraction, collaboration was sought from national payers. To classify MEAs, a bespoke taxonomy was implemented. Identified MEAs were analysed and compared by focusing on five key themes, namely by describing the MEAs in relation to: drug targets and therapeutic classes, geographical spread, type of MEA applied, declared rationale for setting-up of MEAs, and evolution over time.

Results

42 MEAs for 26 OMPs, implemented between 2006 and 2012 and representing a variety of MEA designs, were identified. Italy was the country with the highest number of schemes (n=15), followed by the Netherlands (n=10), England and Wales (n=8), Sweden (n=5) and Belgium (n=4). No MEA was identified for France and Germany due to data unavailability. Antineoplastic agents were the primary targets of MEAs. 55% of the identified MEAs were performance-based risk-sharing arrangements; the other 45% were financial-based. Nine of these 26 OMPs were subject to MEAs in two or three different countries, resulting in 24 MEAs. 60% of identified MEAs focused on conditions whose prevalence is less than 1 per 10,000.

Conclusions

This study confirmed that a variety of MEAs were increasingly used by European payers to manage aspects of uncertainty associated with the introduction of OMPs in the healthcare system, and which may be of a clinical, utilisation, or budgetary nature. It remains unclear whether differences in the use of MEAs reflect differences in how ‘uncertainty’ and ‘value’ are perceived across healthcare systems.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Morel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]European Union: Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European parliament and of the council of 16 december 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities, L18/1, 22/01/2000 2000. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution
• [2]Dupont AG, Van Wilder PB: Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011, 71:488-496.
• [3]Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S: Orphan drug development is not taking off. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009, 67(5):494-502.
• [4]Joppi R, Bertele’ V, Garattini S: Orphan drugs, orphan diseases: the first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013, 69:1009-1024.
• [5]Kanters TA, de Sonneville-Koedoot C, Redekop WK, Hakkaart L: Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpatient orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2013, 8:124. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J: Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs non-orphan drugs for cancer. JAMA 2011, 305:2320-2326.
• [7]Putzeist M, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Llinares J, Gispen-De Wied CC, Hoes AW, Leufkens HG: EU marketing authorization review of orphan and non-orphan drugs does not differ. Drug Discov Today 2013, 18:1001-1006.
• [8]Hemphill TA: Extraordinary pricing of orphan drugs: is it a socially responsible strategy for the U.S. pharmaceutical industry? J Bus Ethics 2010, 94:225-242.
• [9]Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Solomon DH, Winkelmayer WC, Levin R, Avorn J: The prevalence and cost of unapproved uses of top-selling orphan drugs. PLoS One 2012, 7:e31894.
• [10]O’Sullivan BP, Orenstein DM, Milla CE: Pricing for orphan drugs: will the market bear what society cannot? JAMA 2013, 310:1343-1344.
• [11]Orofino J, Soto J, Casado MA, Oyaguez I: Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010, 8:301-315.
• [12]Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Simoens S: Drugs for rare diseases: influence of orphan designation status on price. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011, 9:275-279.
• [13]Roos JC, Hyry HI, Cox TM: Orphan drug pricing may warrant a competition law investigation. BMJ 2010, 341:c6471.
• [14]Simoens S: Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2011, 6:42. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Schey C, Milanova T, Hutchings A: Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010–2020. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2011, 6:62. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Muscolo LAA, Deriu D, Sammarco A, Siviero PD, Pani L: The “weight” of orphan drugs in the European pharmaceutical policy: a focus on the expenditure and the utilization of orphan drugs in five European Union countries. Value Health 2012, 15:A20. Ref Type: Abstract
• [17]Morel T, Simoens S: Coverage of orphan drugs: working with uncertainty? In The future of health economics. Edited by Ethgen O, Staginnus U. Gower Publishing Ltd; in press
• [18]Adamski J, Godman B, Ofierska-Sujkowska G, Osinska B, Herholz H, Wendykowska K, et al.: Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:153. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL: Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy 2010, 96:179-190.
• [20]Garrison LP Jr, Towse A, Briggs A, De PG, Grueger J, Mohr PE, et al.: 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. Value Health 2013, 16:703-719.
• [21]Klemp M, Fronsdal KB, Facey K: What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011, 27:77-83.
• [22]McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R, Menon D: Access with evidence development schemes: a framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010, 28:143-152.
• [23]Stafinski T, McCabe CJ, Menon D: Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010, 28:113-142.
• [24]Walker S, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Palmer S: Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing, or patient access scheme? a framework for coverage decisions. Value Health 2012, 15:570-579.
• [25]Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé publique et de l’environnement: Loi du 10 aout 2001 portant des mesures en matière de soins de santé (Article 35bis§7). . Brussels, Belgium: Moniteur belge (NUMAC: 2001022579); 2001.
• [26]Service public fédéral Sécurité sociale: Arrêté royal du 11 février 2010 modifiant l’arrêté royal du 21 décembre fixant les procédures, délais et conditions en matière d’intervention de l’assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités dans le cout de spécialités pharmaceutiques (Articles 81–85). Brussels, Belgium: Moniteur belge (NUMAC: 2010022119); 2010.
• [27]Department of Health: Cost effective provision of disease modifying therapies for people with multiple sclerosis: health service circular 2002/004. London: Department of Health; 2002. Ref Type: Report
• [28]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Multiple sclerosis - beta interferon and glatiramer acetate: TA32. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2002. Ref Type: Report
• [29]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE: Bortezomib for relapsed multiple myeloma: TA129. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2007. Ref Type: Report
• [30]Department of Health: The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) 2009. London: Department of Health; 2008. Ref Type: Report
• [31]National Health Service (NHS): Drugs attached to a risk sharing scheme (RSS) or patient access scheme (PAS): PAS04. London: National Health Service (NHS); 2013. Ref Type: Report
• [32]Department of Health: Patient access schemes and flexible pricing: statement of outcomes from the review of the pricing flexibility measures under chapter 6 of the 2009 PPRS. London: Department of Health; 2011. Ref Type: Report
• [33]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: TA189. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2010. Ref Type: Report
• [34]Agenzia italiana del farmaco (AIFA): Determinazione 24 luglio 2006. Regime di rimborsabilita e prezzo di vendita della specialita medicinale Tarceva (erlotinib). 2006. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution
• [35]Xoxi E, Tomino T, de Nigro L, Pani L: The Italian post-marketing registries. Pharm Program 2012, 5:57-60.
• [36]College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ): Guidance for outcomes research ’for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of in-patient medicines’: publicatienummer 270. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ); 2008. Ref Type: Report
• [37]College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ): Assessment cost-effectiveness and appropriate use - format results outcomes research for the re-assessment of an intramural drug within the framework of the NZa policy guidelines ‘Expensive drugs’ and ‘Orphan drugs’, four years after preliminary uptake. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ); 2008. Ref Type: Report
• [38]Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Besluit van 30 september 2011, houdende wijziging van het Besluit zorgverzekering in verband met wijziging van de te verzekeren prestaties Zorgverzekeringswet per 2012 en de eigen bijdragen daarvoor en wijziging van dat besluit en het Besluit zorgaanspraken AWBZ in verband met stringent pakketbeheer en wijziging van het Besluit tegemoetkoming chronisch zieken en gehandicapten: 2011/467. Rome: Agenzia italiana del farmaco (AIFA); 2011.
• [39]College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ): Voorwaardelijk toegelaten specialistische geneesmiddelen (updated on October 1st 2012). Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ); 2012. Ref Type: Online Source
• [40]European Medicines Agency (EMA): Assessment report for Myozyme: EMEA/CHMP/631070/2009. London: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2009. Ref Type: Report
• [41]van der Ploeg AT, Clemens PR, Corzo D, Escolar DM, Florence J, Groeneveld GJ, et al.: A randomized study of alglucosidase alfa in late-onset Pompe’s disease. N Engl J Med 2010, 362:1396-1406.
• [42]Rombach SM, Hollak CE, Linthorst GE, Dijkgraaf MG: Cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Fabry disease. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2013, 8:29. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Sheldon T: Dutch doctors call for EU evaluation of cost effectiveness of high cost orphan drugs. BMJ 2012, 345:e5461.
• [44]Simoens S, Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Morel T: Cost-effectiveness assessment of orphan drugs: a scientific and political conundrum. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013, 11:1-3.
• [45]Le Cam Y: Viewpoint on behalf of EURORDIS at the public hearing by the package expert committee of the Dutch healthcare insurance board (CVZ). 2012. http://www.rarediseaseblogs.net/sept-21-2012-eurordis-intervention-at-dutch-healthcare-insurance-board-public-hearing/ webcite
• [46]Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport: Vergoeding weesgeneesmiddelen voor de ziekte van Pompe en de ziekte van Fabry (Ministerial letter). 2013. URL: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/regering/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2013/01/30/kamerbrief-over-vergoeding-weesgeneesmiddelen-voor-ziekte-van-pompe-en-ziekte-van-fabry.html webcite. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution
• [47]Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket (TLV): Act on pharmaceutical benefits: (2002:160). Stockholm: Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket (TLV); 2002.
• [48]Godman B, Gustafsson LL: A new reimbursement system for innovative pharmaceuticals combining value-based and free market pricing. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013, 11:79-82.
• [49]Hugosson K, Engstrom A: Threshold value for a QALY: correlation with disease severity and decision uncertainty. Value Health 2008, 11(3):49. Ref Type: Abstract
• [50]Persson U: Value based pricing in Sweden: lessons for design? Seminar briefing no 12. Stockholm: Office of Health Economics; 2012. Ref Type: Report
• [51]Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé: Accord cadre du 5 décembre 2012 entre le comité économique des produits de santé et le entreprises du médicament. Paris: Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé; 2012.
• [52]Comité économique des produits de santé (CEPS): Rapport d’activité 2009. Paris: Comité économique des produits de santé (CEPS); 2010.
• [53]Comité économique des produits de santé (CEPS): Rapport d’activité 2008. Paris: Comité économique des produits de santé (CEPS); 2009. Ref Type: Report
• [54]Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé: Accord cadre entre le comité économique des produits de santé et le entreprises du médicament – modifié par l’avenant du 7 octobre 2010. Paris: Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé; 2010.
• [55]GKV-Spitzenverband: AMNOG-Verhandlungen zum ersten Wirkstoff gegen seltene Krankheiten erfolgreich beendet. 2012. URL: http://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/presse/pressemitteilungen_und_statements/pressemitteilung_6529.jsp webcite. Ref Type: Internet Communication
• [56]Bouvy J, Vogler S: Update on 2004 background paper, pricing and reimbursement policies: impacts on innovation: BP 8.3. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2013. Ref Type: Report
• [57]European Commission (EC): Final report - working group on mechanism of coordinated access to Orphan medicinal products (MoCA-OMP). Brussels: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry; 2013. Ref Type: Report
• [58]European Commission (EC): Key conclusions and recommendations - working group on mechanism of coordinated access to Orphan medicinal products (MoCA-OMP). Brussels: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry; 2013. Ref Type: Report
• [59]European Commission (EC): Transparent value framework - working group on mechanism of coordinated access to Orphan medicinal products (MoCA-OMP). Brussels: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry; 2013. Ref Type: Report
• [60]European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases (EUCERD): Recommendation for a CAVOMP information flow. Recommendation of the EU Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases to the European Commission and the Member States; 2012. Ref Type: Report
• [61]New drugs and indications in 2012: sluggish progress, timid measures to protect patients Prescrire 2013, 33(352):134-137.
• [62]Polish Parliament: Act on reimbursement of medicines, foodstuffs for special nutritional purposes and medical devices. 2011. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution
• [63]Price agreement expected on cystic fibrosis drug. Irish Times; 2013. Ref Type: Newspaper
• [64]Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport: Voorwaardelijke pakkettoelating specialistische geneesmiddelen (Ministerial letter). 2011. URL:http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/brieven/2011/12/08/brief-over-voorwaardelijke-pakkettoelating-specialistische-geneesmiddelen.html webcite. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution
• [65]Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport: Voorwaardelijke pakkettoelating farmacie (Ministerial letter). 2012. URL: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/03/28/kamerbrief-over-voorwaardelijke-pakkettoelating-farmacie.html webcite. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution
• [66]Ferrario A, Kanavos P: Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. Brussels, Belgium: European Medicines Information Network (EMINET); 2013. Ref Type: Report