The Evolution of AIFA Registries to Support Managed Entry Agreements for Orphan Medicinal Products in Italy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xoxi E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8386173 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNational 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.MethodsTo 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.Results42 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.ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC3882782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: This study aimed to understand Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) in Korea through the framework of three streams of the policy window model and its practical management and impact on pricing and reimbursement scheme. Methods: An extensive literature review based on Kingdon's model was conducted. We also performed descriptive analyses of MEA implementation using data on medicines listed in Korea and compared its MEA scheme with four different countries. Results: As per problem streams, patients with rare disease or cancers have considerable difficulties in affording their medicines and this has challenged the drug benefit system and raised an issue of patient's access. Policy streams highlighted that MEAs were introduced as a benefit enhancement plan for four major diseases since January 2014. MEAs have also been strengthened as a bypass mechanism to expand the insurance coverage especially for new premium-priced medicines under Moon Care (Listing all non-listed services). In descriptive analysis of MEAs, a total of 48 medicines were contracted as MEAs from January 2014 to December 2020, accounting for 73.4% of listed medicines for cancer or rare diseases and 97.9% of the cases were finance-based contracts. Meanwhile, outcome-based contracts such as CED accounted for only 2.1%. The application of MEAs differs across countries, resulting in a kappa coefficient of 0.00-0.14 (United Kingdom 0.03, Italy 0.00, Australia 0.14), indicating a lack of consistency compared to South Korea. Conclusion: MEAs, which were introduced as a bypass mechanism, have now superseded the standard process for anticancer agents or orphan drugs. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the confidential agreements and effectiveness of new high-priced medicines with limited clinical data at launch.
| S-EPMC10133550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveEnthusiasm for the use of outcomes-based managed entry agreements (OBMEAs) to manage uncertainties apparent at the time of appraisal/pricing and reimbursement of new medicines has waned over the past decade, as challenges in establishment, implementation and re-appraisal have been identified. With the recent advent of innovative treatments for rare diseases that have uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, but which could meet a high unmet need, there has been renewed interest in the potential of OBMEAs. The objective of this research was to review the implementation of OBMEAs for two case studies across countries in the European Union, Australia and Canada, to identify good practices that could inform development of tools to support implementation of OBMEAs.MethodsTo investigate how OBMEAs are being implemented with rare disease treatments, we collected information from health technology assessment/payer experts in countries that had implemented OBMEAs for either nusinersen in spinal muscular atrophy or tisagenlecleucel in two cancer indications. Operational characteristics of the OBMEAs that were publicly available were documented. Then, the experts discussed issues in implementing these OBMEAs and specific approaches taken to overcome challenges.ResultsThe OBMEAs identified were based on individual outcomes to ensure appropriate use, manage continuation of treatment and in two cases linked to payment schedules, or they were population based, coverage with evidence development. For nusinersen, population-based OBMEAs are documented in Belgium, England and the Netherlands and individual-based schemes in Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy and Lithuania. For tisagenlecleucel, there were population-based schemes in Australia, Belgium, England and France and individual-based schemes in Italy and Spain. Comparison of the OBMEA constructs showed some clear published frameworks and clarity of the uncertainties to be addressed that were similar across countries. Agreements were generally made between the marketing authorisation holder and the payer with involvement of expert physicians. Only England and the Netherlands involved patients. Italy used its long-established, national, web-based, treatment-specific data collection system linked to reimbursement and Spain has just developed such a national treatment registry system. Other countries relied on a variety of data collection systems (including clinical registries) and administrative data. Durations of agreements varied for these treatments as did processes for interim reporting. The processes to ensure data quality, completeness and sufficiency for re-analysis after coverage with evidence development were not always clear, neither were analysis plans.ConclusionsThese case studies have shown that important information about the constructs of OBMEAs for rare disease treatments are publicly available, and for some jurisdictions, interim reports of progress. Outcomes-based managed entry agreements can play an important role not only in reimbursement, but also in treatment optimisation. However, they are complex to implement and should be the exception and not the rule. More recent OBMEAs have developed document covenants among stakeholders or electronic systems to provide assurances about data sufficiency. For coverage with evidence development, there is an opportunity for greater collaboration among jurisdictions to share processes, develop common data collection agreements, and share interim and final reports. The establishment of an international public portal to host such reports would be particularly valuable for rare disease treatments.
| S-EPMC8260322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundManaged entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available.MethodWe conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017.ResultsSixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%).ConclusionsExperience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.
| S-EPMC5684278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to compare the availability and access of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in the devolved nations in the United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Availability is defined as the possibility to prescribe OMPs. Access refers to their full or partial reimbursement by the public health service.MethodsData were collated on: marketing authorisations, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) decisions, commissioning, and reimbursement decisions, and respective dates of these events for all the OMPs centrally authorised. Indicators of availability of and access to OMPs were calculated in each country and compared.ResultsWe found that since the implementation of the OMPs Regulation in 2000 to end of May 2016, 143 OMPs obtained a marketing authorisation in the European Union. These OMPs are most widely accessible in Germany and France. In the other countries between 30 and 60% of OMPs are reimbursed. In particular in England, less than 50% of centrally authorised OMPs are routinely funded by the NHS, with one-third of these recommended by NICE. In Germany reimbursement is automatically granted to all medicines which receive a marketing authorisation, immediately after authorisation - but since 2011, there is an evaluation and potentially a pricing negotiation between companies and sickness funds (third party payers). In the other countries, the shortest time from authorisation to a reimbursement decision is observed in Italy and France where it takes 18.6 and 19.5 months respectively on average.ConclusionsMarketing authorisation granted to OMPs is only the first step, as medicines reach patients when reimbursement decisions are implemented by national health systems (this applies to non-OMPs too). We found that more than a half of centrally authorised OMPs were available in the five selected countries, but that access to patients was further restricted by different national reimbursement policies, especially in the UK, Italy and Spain.
| S-EPMC6499954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFunding of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is an increasing challenge in the European Union (EU).ObjectivesTo identify the different methods for public funding of OMPs in order to map the availability for rare disease patients, as well as to compare the public expenditures on OMPs in 8 EU member states.MethodsInformation on the reimbursement status of 83 OMPs was collected in 8 countries by distinguishing standard and special reimbursements. In two consecutive years, the total public expenditures on OMPs were calculated by using annual EUR exchange rates. Annual total public expenditures were calculated per capita, and as a proportion of GDP, total public pharmaceutical and healthcare budgets. Differences between countries were compared by calculating the deviations from the average spending of countries.ResultsIn 2015 29.4-92.8% of the 83 OMPs were available with any kind of public reimbursement in participant countries including special reimbursement on an individual basis. In Austria, Belgium and France more OMPs were accessible for patients with public reimbursement than in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Standard reimbursement through retail pharmacies and/or hospitals was applied from 0 to 41% of OMPs. The average annual total public expenditure ranged between 1.4-23.5 €/capita in 2013 and 2014. Higher income countries spent more OMPs in absolute terms. Participant countries spent 0.018-0.066% of their GDPs on funding OMPs. Average expenditures on OMPs were ranged between 2.25-6.51% of the public pharmaceutical budget, and 0.44-0.96% of public healthcare expenditures.ConclusionsStandard and special reimbursement techniques play different roles in participant countries. The number of accessible OMPs indicated an equity gap between Eastern and Western Europe. The spending on OMPs as a proportion of GDP, public pharmaceutical and healthcare expenditure was not higher in lower income countries, which indicates substantial differences in patient access to OMPs in favour of higher-income countries. Equity in access for patients with rare diseases is an important policy objective in each member state of the EU; however, equity in access should be harmonized at the European level.
| S-EPMC6219168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: The aim of this study is to conduct an analysis on the regulation and application of managed entry agreements (MEA) for oncology drugs across different European countries. Methods: Literature search and document analysis were performed between September 2015 and June 2016 to collect information on the regulatory framework and practice of MEA in Belgium, The Netherlands, Scotland, England and Wales, Sweden, Italy, Czech Republic and France. An overview of the content and typology of MEA applied for oncology drugs between 2008 and 2015 was generated based on publically available sources and contributions by national health authorities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of national health authorities involved in the management or negotiation of MEA. Results: The application of MEA differs across countries and across different indications for the same drug. Financial based agreements are prevailing due to their simplicity compared to performance-based agreements. Performance-based agreements are less commonly applied in the European countries except for Italy. In the Netherlands, application of performance-based agreements was stopped due to their inability to deal with dynamics in the market, which is highly relevant for oncology drugs. Conclusions: MEA constitute a common policy tool that public payers in European countries use to ensure early access to highly priced oncology drugs. In light of strengths and weaknesses observed for MEA and the expected developments in the oncology area, the importance of MEA is likely to grow in the future.
| S-EPMC5378787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Despite the increased utilisation of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs), empirical studies assessing their impact on achieving better access to medicines remains scarce. In this study we evaluated the role of MEAs on enhancing availability of and timely access to a sample of oncology medicines that had received at least one prior rejection from reimbursement. Methods Funding decisions and their respective timelines for all oncology medicines approved between 2009 and 2018 in Australia, England, Scotland and Sweden were studied. A number of binary logit models captured the probability (Odds ratio (OR)) of a previous coverage rejection being reversed to positive after resubmission with vs. without a MEA. Gamma generalised linear models were used to understand if there is any association between time to final funding decision and the presence of MEA, among other decision-making variables, and if so, the strength and direction of this association (Beta coefficient (B)). Results Of the 59 previously rejected medicine-indication pairs studied, 88.2% (n = 45) received a favourable decision after resubmission with MEA vs. 11.8% (n = 6) without. Average time from original submission to final funding decision was 404 (± 254) and 452 (± 364) days for submissions without vs. with MEA respectively. Resubmissions with a MEA had a higher likelihood of receiving a favourable funding decision compared to those without MEA (43.36 < OR < 202, p < 0.05), although approval specifically with an outcomes-based agreement was associated with an increase in the time to final funding decision (B = 0.89, p < 0.01). A statistically significant decrease in time to final funding decision was observed for resubmissions in Australia and Scotland compared to England and Sweden, and for resubmissions with a clinically relevant instead of a surrogate endpoint. Conclusions MEAs can improve availability of medicines by increasing the likelihood of reimbursement for medicines that would have otherwise remained rejected from reimbursement due to their evidentiary uncertainties. Nevertheless, approval with a MEA can increase the time to final funding decision, while the true, added value for patients and healthcare systems of the interventions approved with MEAs in comparison to other available interventions remains unknown. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08437-w.
| S-EPMC9392357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pancreatic cancer has a dismal prognosis and only a few treatment options are available. In the European Union, pancreatic cancer classifies as a rare disease, allowing drug developers to apply for orphan medicinal product (OMP) designation. The aim of this study was to provide more detail on OMPs for pancreatic cancer. All applications for OMP designation submitted to the EMA between 2000 and 2019 were identified. For each medicinal product that received an OMP designation, the mode of drug action, use of protocol assistance, and current life cycle status was determined. Fifty-two medicinal products received an OMP designation. At the time of submission, eighteen OMPs were at the non-clinical and 34 OMPs were at the clinical stage of development. At least fourteen kinds of mode of action were explored in the condition. For eighteen out of 52 OMPs protocol assistance was sought. At the time of data analysis, one OMP received marketing authorisation and 24 OMPs were ongoing in development. Many medicinal products for pancreatic cancer received an OMP designation and the majority of these products was already in the clinical stage of development. Nonetheless, the success rate of OMPs for pancreatic cancer that reach the market is low, and increasing this rate is something to aspire. Fortunately, development is still ongoing for a part of the OMPs, and a few developers are planning to submit a marketing authorisation application in the near future. This however does not guarantee success, as pancreatic cancer remains a difficult disease to treat. Developers are advised to make optimal use of incentives such as protocol assistance, establishing (early) dialogue between regulators and drug developers and to agree on important topics such as clinical trial design.
| S-EPMC8720999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundManaged entry agreements (MEAs) continue to emerge in health technology assessment (HTA)-based decision-making, to address evidentiary uncertainties arising therein. Evidence on the HTA criteria that influence MEAs' uptake remains scarce. This study explores the HTA criteria that determine (i) if an HTA funding decision will be listed with conditions (LWC) other than a MEA, or with a MEA as a condition (LWCMEA), and ii) the MEA type implemented (i.e., financial, outcomes based, or combination).MethodsHTA reports of all oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were searched to capture the clinical/economic evidence uncertainties raised in the decision-making process, the Social Value Judgements (SVJs) considered therein and the final coverage decision. Binary and multinomial logit models captured the probability (odds ratio (OR)) of a coverage decision being LWCMEA vs. LWC, and of the MEA being financial, outcomes based, or combination, based on the HTA criteria studied.Results23 (12%) LWC and 163 (88%) LWCMEA decisions were identified; 136 (83.4%) comprised financial, 10 (6.2%) outcomes based and 17 (10.4%) combination MEAs. LWCMEA decisions were driven by economic model utilities' uncertainties (7.16 < OR < 26.7, p < .05), and the innovation (8.5 < OR < 11.7, p < .05) SVJ. Outcomes based contracts were influenced by clinical evidence (OR = 69.2, p < .05) and relevance to clinical practice (OR = 26.4, p < .05) uncertainties, and rarity (OR = 46.2, p < .05) and severity (OR = 23.3, p < .05) SVJs. Financial MEAs were influenced by innovation (8.9 < OR < 9.3, p < .05) and societal impact (OR = 17.7, p < .0001) SVJs.ConclusionsThis study provides an empirical framework on the HTA criteria that shape payers' preferences in funding with MEAs, when faced with uncertainty.
| S-EPMC10406668 | biostudies-literature