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.

Financing Strategies to Facilitate Access to High-Cost Anticancer Drugs: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: Each country manages access to anticancer drugs differently due to variations in the structure and financing of the health system, but a summary of the various strategies used is absent. This study aimed to review and summarize financing strategies implemented across countries to facilitate access to high-cost anticancer drugs. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of articles referenced in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through May 12, 2021. Articles published in the English language from 2000 that describe strategies implemented in different countries to facilitate access to high-cost anticancer drugs were included. Letters, news articles, and proposed strategies were excluded. Quality assessment was not performed as we aimed to summarize the strategies. Data were analyzed by thematic analysis. A review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018068616). Results: The review included 204 studies from 176 countries. Three themes of financing strategies were identified: 1) Basic pharmaceutical reimbursement and pricing policies, 2) Alternative funding strategies specific to high-cost drugs, and 3) Financial assistance for individual patients. Access in most countries depends mainly on basic pharmaceutical reimbursement policies (165 of 176 countries). Apart from that, high-income countries tended to use funding strategies targeting high-cost drugs (72% of high-income countries vs 0-24% of the rest), such as Managed Entry Agreements or dedicated funds for high-cost drugs. In contrast, lower-income countries tended to implement financial assistance programs for cancer patients as a tool to increase access (32% of high-income countries vs 62-79% of the rest). Conclusion: Many countries have implemented a combination of strategies to increase access to high-cost anticancer drugs. Most low- and middle-income countries utilized placement of anticancer drugs on a national list of essential medicines and patient assistance programs to facilitate access, while many high-income countries implemented a broader range of strategies.

The Evolution of AIFA Registries to Support Managed Entry Agreements for Orphan Medicinal Products in Italy

Italy has a well-established prominent system of national registries to support managed entry agreements (MEAs), monitoring innovative medicinal products (MPs) with clinical as well as economic uncertainties to ensure appropriate use and best value for money. The technological architecture of the registries is funded by pharmaceutical companies, but fully governed by the national medicines agency (AIFA). A desktop analysis was undertaken of data over a 15-year timeframe of all AIFA indication-based registries and associated EMA information. The characteristics of registries were evaluated, comparing orphan MPs vs. all MPs exploring cancer and non-cancer indications. OMP (orphan medicinal product) registries’ type vs. AIFA innovation status and EMA approval was reviewed. Of the 283 registries, 182 are appropriateness registries (35.2% relate to OMPs, with an almost equal split of cancer vs. non-cancer for OMPs and MPs), 35 include financial-based agreements [20% OMPs (2 non-cancer, 5 cancer)], and 60 registries are payment by result agreements [23.3% OMPs (4 non-cancer, 10 cancer)]. Most OMPs (53/88) came through the normal regulatory route. With the strengthening of the system for evaluation of innovation, fewer outcomes-based registries have been instigated. AIFA has overcome many of the challenges experienced with MEA through developing an integrated national web-based data collection system: the challenge that remains for AIFA is to move from using the system for individual patient decisions about treatment to reviewing the wealth of data it now holds to optimize healthcare.

Price and reimbursement for orphan medicines and managed entry agreements: does Italy need a framework?

This article illustrates a consensus opinion of an expert panel on the need and usefulness of a framework for price and reimbursement (P&R) process and managed entry agreements (MEAs) for orphan medicines in Italy. This opinion was gathered in three rounds: an introductory document was sent to the panel and discussed during a recorded online meeting. A second document was sent to the panel for their review. In the third step the final document was validated. Members of the expert panel are the authors of the article. The panel agreed that Italy does not need a specific value framework for orphan medicines, driving the P&R process. Rather, a more structured value framework for all medicines tailored to the specific drugs can be useful. For orphan drugs, the panel advocated for a multidisciplinary approach and the contribution of different stakeholders to value assessment, and acknowledged the importance of addressing, more than for other drugs, unmet needs, equity issues and societal value. The panel raised the need of increasing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. Experts, acknowledging the growing criticisms in implementation of outcome-based agreements in Italy, expressed their position against their abandonment in favour of discounts only and supported orphan medicines as natural candidates for these agreements. Finally, the panel made some recommendations on the appraisal process for orphan medicines, including an early discussion on the uncertainty of the evidence generated and the adoption of a structured approach to identify the agreement, which better responds to the uncertainty.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

Managed entry agreementsas a new legal framework for access to medicines

Key words: managed entry agreements, availability of medicines, original medicines,purchase of medicines, medicinal immunobiological drugs The article concerns the new provisions of national legislativea legal mechanism for access to medicines, namely managed entry agreements. Theuse of managed entry agreements in European contract practice is widespread.Ukraine, in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, has reviewed the legal mechanismsfor access to medicines contained in national legislation and had taken the firststeps towards implementing managed access agreements.Ukrainian legislation did not contain such a concept as a managed entry agreementby March 2020, and such agreement was never used in Ukrainian contract practicefor the purchase of medicines. On March 17, 2020, changes were made to the nationallegislation, namely the Law of Ukraine «On amendments to certain laws ofUkraine aimed at increasing the availability of medicines, medical products and theiraccessories, which are purchased by the person authorized to carry out purchases inthe field of health care» which were amended, in particular, to the Law of Ukraine«Fundamentals of the legislation of Ukraine on health care» and supplemented by article791 of which a managed entry agreement to national legislation was introduced. The provision of Article 79-1 of the Fundamentals of the legislation of Ukraine onhealth care regarding the parties, subject matter, content of managed entry agreementsis analysed.January 27, 2021, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted a decision approvingthe procedure for the negotiation, execution, modification and termination ofmanaged entry agreement. A standard form of agreement for a managed entry agreementhas been approved. The managed entry agreements procedure has been introducedin Ukraine February 15, 2021.The legal and regulatory provisions concerning managed entry agreements havebeen analysed and highlighted their particularities.

Value-based pricing for advanced therapy medicinal products: emerging affordability solutions

The emergence of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), a disruptive class of health technologies, is generating important challenges in terms of value assessment and their high prices introduce critical access and affordability concerns. The aim of this article is to analyze the challenges of traditional value assessment and price and reimbursement methods in the evaluation of ATMPs and to characterize the current and prospective financing solutions that may ensure patient access and affordability for these health technologies. Standard Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is not designed for ATMPs, and may delay access to these health technologies, thus a broader concept of value is required. As a consequence, value-based pricing methodologies have been gaining terrain to cope with the specific challenges of ATMPs. The pricing and reimbursement framework should ensure the balance between encouragements to innovation and maximization of value for money for payers, through the attribution of a fair price to new health technologies. Early scientific advice by regulatory and HTA bodies to developers is key, as it will contribute to diminish the perspective gap between developers, regulators and payers. The high efficacy/high price dynamic of many advanced therapies will demand novel financing models, both in the EU and US. Managed entry agreements (MEA), with financing being conditional to the submission of additional evidence, associated with methods of leased payments, may offer effective strategies to address the uncertainties caused by the evidence gap associated with ATMPs, ensuring affordable and sustained access.