A Review of the Evidence on Attitudes, Perceived Impacts and Motivational Factors for European Member State Collaboration for Pricing and Reimbursement of Medicines: Time for the EEA Member States to Apply Their Experience and Expertise in Evidence-Based Decision Making to Their Current Pharmaceutical Policy Challenges

In 2018/2019 there were a number of initiatives for collaboration between Member States in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment. In view of the perceived benefits from collaboration, the experiences and challenges of these collaborative initiatives and the possible implications of the proposed legislation, a study of the evidence on attitudes, perceived impacts and the motivational factors towards European Member State collaboration regarding the pricing and reimbursement of medicines was conducted. This study adopted an evidence–based management approach by Barends and Rousseau. The main findings showed that Member States differed in their motivation for collaboration for different pharmaceutical activities. Member States favoured voluntary co-operation for all activities of pricing and reimbursement except for relative effectiveness assessments where Member State authorities had divergent attitudes and prioritised activities related to the sustainability of their healthcare systems and access to medicines. Contrastingly pharmaceutical companies strongly favoured mandatory cooperation for evaluation. Member States motivation for collaboration was highly dependent on the purpose, political will, implementation climate and cultural factors. Currently, with the experiences of ongoing collaborations, following the progress of the discussion at Council, and with a number of inititatives for new pharmaceutical strategy and policy, it is proposed that Member States use their trust, expertise and knowledge of application of evidence-based decision making for pricing and reimbursement of medicines and apply it to decide the future model for Member State collaboration. The applicability of principles of evidence-based management to pharmaceutical policy can be used as a starting point.

A Comparative Analysis of Pricing and Reimbursement of Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator Modulators in Europe

Objectives: Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators, Kalydeco® (ivacaftor), Orkambi® (lumacaftor/ivacaftor) and Symkevi® (tezacaftor/ivacaftor), have substantially improved patients’ lives yet significantly burden healthcare budgets. This analysis aims to compare pricing and reimbursement of aforementioned cystic fibrosis medicines, across European countries.Methods: Clinical trial registries, national databases, health technology assessment reports and grey literature of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, the United Kingdom were consulted. Publicly available prices, reimbursement statuses, economic evaluations, budget impact analyses and managed entry agreements of CFTR modulators were examined. Results: In Belgium, lowest list prices were observed for Kalydeco® (ivacaftor) and Symkevi® (tezacaftor/ivacaftor) at €417 per defined daily dose (DDD) and €372 per average daily dose (ADD), respectively. Whereas, Switzerland had the lowest price for Orkambi® (lumacaftor/ivacaftor) listed at €309 per DDD. Spain had the highest prices for Kalydeco® (ivacaftor) and Symkevi® (tezacaftor/ivacaftor) at €850 per DDD and €761 per ADD, whereas Orkambi® (lumacaftor/ivacaftor) was most expensive in Poland at €983 per DDD. However, list prices were subject to confidential discounts and likely varied from actual costs. In all countries, these treatments were deemed not to be cost-effective. The annual budget impact of the CFTR modulators varied between countries and depended on factors such as local product prices, size of target population, scope of costs and discounting. However, all modulators were fully reimbursed in ten of the evaluated countries except for Sweden and Poland that, respectively, granted reimbursement to one and none of the therapies. Managed entry agreements were confidential but commonly adopted to address financial uncertainties.Conclusion: Discrepancies concerning prices, reimbursement and access were detected for Kalydeco® (ivacaftor), Orkambi® (lumacaftor/ivacaftor) and Symkevi® (tezacaftor/ivacaftor) across European countries.

Description of the use of multicriteria to support pricing and reimbursement decisions by European health technology assessment bodies

Background Heterogeneity in drug access throughout Europe may be influenced by differences in drug-assessment strategies. The EUnetHTA’s assessment core model (EUnetHTA-core) and the EVIDEM’s multicriteria framework are reference methodologies in this context, the latter including a wider compromise between non-contextual and contextual criteria. Compliance of 37 European Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTAb) with EUnetHTA-core has been reported, but the use of EVIDEM by this HTAb is still unknown. Methods To describe the uptake and use of multicriteria approaches to evaluate drug value by European HTAb using EVIDEM as reference framework, a multicriteria framework was obtained based on EVIDEM model. The criteria used for drug appraisal by HTAb was extracted from the EUnetHTA report, and completed through search of websites, publications and HTAb reports. Use of EVIDEM assessment model in 37 European HTAb has been described semi-quantitatively and summarized using an alignment heatmap. Results Aligned, medium or misaligned profiles were seen for 24,3%, 51,4% and 24,3% of HTAb when matching to EVIDEM dimensions and criteria was considered. HTAb with explicit responsibilities in providing specific advice on reimbursement showed more aligned profiles on contextual and non-contextual dimensions. Conclusions EUnetHTA’s core model is limited in assessing medicines while EVIDEM’s framework provides contextual dimension used by some HTAb in Europe that can be escalated to other agencies. Most of the 37 European HTAb have room to broaden their contextual assessment tools, especially when social and medical perception of need requires to be explicit to support payer’s decision on reimbursement.

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 2 on pharmaceutical policy perspectives

Background A core evaluation framework that captures the health care and societal benefits of value added medicines (VAMs, also often called repurposed medicines) was proposed in Report 1, aiming to reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and to create incentives for manufacturers to invest into incremental innovation. However, this can be impactful only if the framework can be adapted to heterogeneous health care financing systems in different jurisdictions, and the cost of evidence generation necessitated by the framework takes into account the anticipated benefits for the health care system and rewards for the developers. Areas covered The framework could potentially improve the pricing and reimbursement decisions of VAMs by adapting it to different country specific decision-contexts such as deliberative processes, augmented cost-effectiveness frameworks or formal multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); alternatively, some of its domains may be added to current general evaluation frameworks of medicines. The proposed evaluation framework may provide a starting point for practices based on which VAMs can be exempted from generic pricing mechanisms or can be integrated into the reimbursement and procurement system, allowing for price differentiation according to their added value. Besides evidence from RCTs, pricing and reimbursement decision processes of VAMs should allow for ex-ante non-RCT evidence for certain domains. Alternatively, relying on ex-post evidence agreements—such as outcome guarantee or coverage with evidence development—can also reduce decision uncertainty. Conclusions The core evaluation framework for VAMs could trigger changes in the existing pricing, reimbursement and procurement practices by improving the appraisal of the added value created by incremental innovation.

Role of the EMA specific marketing authorization procedures for early access on the time to patient access in Bulgaria

Despite the early access procedures for marketing authorization (MA) valid throughout the European Union still in the most of the Member states patient access to innovative medicines depends on cost-effectiveness, budget impact assessment and negotiations for price discount with the public payers. Retrospective analysis on the availability and time to market access of medicines authorized under the European medicines agency’s specific procedures for early access shows that despite the shortening of the time to market access after 2013, for most medicines still exceeds 365 days. This is due to the fact that requirements for pricing and reimbursement across EU is fixed to some degree and medicines with MA for early access are subject to the same legal requirements as the medicines with standard centralized marketing authorization. Some specific national legal requirements for pricing and reimbursement decisions, population of interest and manufactures intentions to enter certain markets should also be considered.