Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: Lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future

Overview

Journal Front Pharmacol

Date 2017 Apr 20

PMID 28420990

Citations 51

Authors

Kim Pauwels

Isabelle Huys

Sabine Vogler

Minne Casteels

Steven Simoens

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Citing Articles

Budget Impact Analysis of Olaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab for Maintenance Therapy for Ovarian Cancer in Argentina.

Rojas-Roque C, Silvestrini C, Argento F, Sugg D, Augustovski F, Coelli J Pharmacoecon Open. 2024; 8(4):585-598.

PMID: 38831188 PMC: 11252110. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00495-6.

Timely, Cheap, or Risk-Free? The Effect of Regulation on the Price and Availability of New Drugs.

Levaggi L, Levaggi R Pharmacy (Basel). 2024; 12(2).

PMID: 38525730 PMC: 10961771. DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy12020050.

The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study.

Lee M, Larose H, Grabeldinger M, Williams J, Baird A, Brown S Health Policy Open. 2024; 6:100116.

PMID: 38464704 PMC: 10924144. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2024.100116.

Stakeholder Insights into Czech Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements: Potential for Transformative Change in Pharmaceutical Access?.

Hospodkova P, Karasek P, Tichopad A Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(1).

PMID: 38201024 PMC: 10779200. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12010119.

Financial Outcomes of Managed Entry Agreements for Pharmaceuticals in Italy.

Trotta F, Guerrizio M, Di Filippo A, Cangini A JAMA Health Forum. 2023; 4(12):e234611.

PMID: 38153808 PMC: 10755625. DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4611.

References

Navarria A, Drago V, Gozzo L, Longo L, Mansueto S, Pignataro G . Do the current performance-based schemes in Italy really work? "Success fee": a novel measure for cost-containment of drug expenditure. Value Health. 2015; 18(1):131-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.007. View

Jonsson B, Hofmarcher T, Lindgren P, Wilking N . The cost and burden of cancer in the European Union 1995-2014. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 66:162-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.06.022. View

Eichler H, Baird L, Barker R, Bloechl-Daum B, Borlum-Kristensen F, Brown J . From adaptive licensing to adaptive pathways: delivering a flexible life-span approach to bring new drugs to patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 97(3):234-46. PMC: 6706805. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.59. View

Vogler S, Zimmermann N, Habl C, Piessnegger J, Bucsics A . Discounts and rebates granted to public payers for medicines in European countries. South Med Rev. 2012; 5(1):38-46. PMC: 3471187. View

. The price of drugs for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a reflection of the unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts. Blood. 2013; 121(22):4439-42. PMC: 4190613. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-03-490003. View

Edlin R, Hall P, Wallner K, McCabe C . Sharing risk between payer and provider by leasing health technologies: an affordable and effective reimbursement strategy for innovative technologies?. Value Health. 2014; 17(4):438-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.010. View

Gozzo L, Navarria A, Drago V, Longo L, Mansueto S, Pignataro G . Linking the Price of Cancer Drug Treatments to Their Clinical Value. Clin Drug Investig. 2016; 36(7):579-89. DOI: 10.1007/s40261-016-0403-1. View

Garattini S, Bertele V . Efficacy, safety, and cost of new anticancer drugs. BMJ. 2002; 325(7358):269-71. PMC: 1123779. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.269. View

Carlson J, Garrison Jr L, Sullivan S . Paying for outcomes: innovative coverage and reimbursement schemes for pharmaceuticals. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009; 15(8):683-7. PMC: 10438050. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.8.683. View

10.

Fojo T, Lo A . Price, value, and the cost of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(1):3-5. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00564-1. View

11.

Vogler S, Vitry A, Babar Z . Cancer drugs in 16 European countries, Australia, and New Zealand: a cross-country price comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 17(1):39-47. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00449-0. View

12.

Leopold C, Vogler S, Mantel-Teeuwisse A, de Joncheere K, Leufkens H, Laing R . Differences in external price referencing in Europe: a descriptive overview. Health Policy. 2011; 104(1):50-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.09.008. View

13.

Pauwels K, Huys I, Casteels M, Simoens S . Industry Perspectives on Market Access of Innovative Drugs: The Relevance for Oncology Drugs. Front Pharmacol. 2016; 7:144. PMC: 4887481. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2016.00144. View

14.

Ferrario A, Kanavos P . Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: a comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 124:39-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.003. View

15.

Pauwels K, Huys I, Casteels M, De Nys K, Simoens S . Market access of cancer drugs in European countries: improving resource allocation. Target Oncol. 2013; 9(2):95-110. DOI: 10.1007/s11523-013-0301-x. View

16.

Toumi M, Jaroslawski S, Sawada T, Kornfeld A . The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements : Current Debate. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016; 15(1):5-11. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0274-x. View

17.

van de Vooren K, Curto A, Freemantle N, Garattini L . Market-access agreements for anti-cancer drugs. J R Soc Med. 2014; 108(5):166-70. PMC: 4484207. DOI: 10.1177/0141076814559626. View

18.

Fojo T, Grady C . How much is life worth: cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(15):1044-8. PMC: 2724853. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp177. View

19.

Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E . 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 J Rare Dis. 2013; 8:198. PMC: 3882782. DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-8-198. View