50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

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

          Methods

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

          Results and discussion

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

          Conclusion

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

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.

          National public insurance for drugs is often based on evidence of comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This study describes how that evidence has been used across 3 jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, and Britain) that have been at the forefront of evidence-based coverage internationally. To describe how clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence is used in coverage decisions both within and across jurisdictions and to identify common issues in the process of evidence-based coverage. Descriptive analysis of retrospective data from the Common Drug Review (CDR) of Canada, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in Britain, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) of Australia. All publicly available information as of December 31, 2008, was gathered from each committee's Web site (data set begins in January 2004 [CDR], February 2001 [NICE], and July 2005 [PBAC]). Listing recommendations for each drug by disease indication. NICE recommended 87.4% (174/199) of submissions for listing compared with a listing rate of 49.6% (60/121) and 54.3% (153/282) for the CDR and PBAC, respectively. Significant uncertainty around clinical effectiveness, typically resulting from inadequate study design or the use of inappropriate comparators and unvalidated surrogate end points, was identified as a key issue in coverage decisions. Recommendations varied considerably across countries, possibly because of differences in the medications reviewed; different agency processes, including the willingness to negotiate on price; and the approach to "me too" drugs. The data suggest that the 3 agencies make recommendations that are consistent with evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness but that other factors are often important. NICE, PBAC, and CDR face common issues with respect to the quality and strength of the experimental evidence in support of a clinically meaningful effect. However, comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, along with other relevant factors, can be used by national agencies to support drug decision making. The results of the evaluation process in different countries are influenced by the context, agency processes, ability to engage in price negotiation, and perhaps differences in social values.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            How much will Herceptin really cost?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems.

              As tensions between payers, responsible for ensuring prudent and principled use of scarce resources, and both providers and patients, who legitimately want access to technologies from which they could benefit, continue to mount, interest in approaches to managing the uncertainty surrounding the introduction of new health technologies has heightened. The purpose of this project was to compile an inventory of various types of 'access with evidence development' (AED) schemes, examining characteristics of the technologies to which they have been applied, the uncertainty they sought to address, the terms of arrangements of each scheme, and the policy outcomes. It also aimed to identify issues related to such schemes, including advantages and disadvantages from the perspectives of various stakeholder groups. A comprehensive search, review and appraisal of peer-reviewed and 'grey' literature were performed, followed by a facilitated workshop of academics and decision makers with expertise in AED schemes. Information was extracted and compiled in tabular form to identify patterns or trends. To enhance the validity of interpretations made, member checking was performed. Although the concept of AED is not new, evaluative data are sparse. Despite varying opinions on the 'right' answers to some of the questions raised, there appears to be consensus on a 'way forward'--development of methodological guidelines. All stakeholders seemed to share the view that AEDs offer the potential to facilitate patient access to promising new technologies and encourage innovation while ensuring effective use of scarce healthcare resources. There is no agreement on what constitutes 'sufficient evidence', and it depends on the specific uncertainty in question. There is agreement on the need for 'best practice' guidelines around the implementation and evaluation of AED schemes. This is the first attempt at a comprehensive analysis of methods that have been used to address uncertainty concerning a new drug or other technology. The analysis reveals that, although various approaches have been experimented with, many of them have not achieved the ostensible goal of the approach. This article outlines challenges related to AED schemes and issues that remain unresolved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central
                1472-6963
                2010
                7 June 2010
                : 10
                : 153
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland
                [2 ]Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ]Institute for Pharmacological Research 'Mario Negri', Milan, Italy
                [4 ]Prescribing Research Group, University of Liverpool Management School, UK
                [5 ]Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Warsaw, Poland
                [6 ]Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Hessen, Frankfurt, Germany
                [7 ]HTA Consulting, Krakow, Poland
                [8 ]State Agency of Medicines, Tartu, Estonia
                [9 ]Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Newark, USA and Clinical Professor, Rutgers State University of New Jersey, USA
                [10 ]IRDES (Institut de Recherche et de Documentation en Économie de la Santé), Paris, France
                [11 ]Catalan Health Service, Barcelona, Spain
                [12 ]Republic Institute for Health Insurance, Serbia
                [13 ]Hospital Pharmacy, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden
                [14 ]Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania
                Article
                1472-6963-10-153
                10.1186/1472-6963-10-153
                2906457
                20529296
                2117bab0-544b-4114-9812-bf79ad96626b
                Copyright ©2010 Adamski et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 October 2009
                : 7 June 2010
                Categories
                Correspondence

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article