Search

Cell and gene therapy poses evolving challenges. The current article summarizes the discussions held by European Regional Committee of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) on the current challenges in this field, focusing on the European setting. This article emphasizes the imperative assessment of real-world cell and gene therapy activity, advocating for expanded registries beyond hematopoietic transplantation and chimeric antigen receptor–T-cell therapy. Accreditation's role in ensuring standardized procedures, as exemplified by JACIE (The Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT-Europe and EBMT), is crucial for safety. Access to commercial products and reimbursement variations among countries underscore the need for uniform access to advanced therapy medical products (ATMPs). Academic product development and point-of-care manufacturing face barriers to patient access. Hospital Exemption's potential, demonstrated by some initial experiences, may increase patient accessibility in individual situations. Regulatory challenges, including the ongoing European ATMPs legislation review, necessitate standardized criteria for Hospital Exemption and mandatory reporting within registries. Efforts to combat unproven therapies and fraud involve collaboration between scientific societies, regulatory bodies and patient groups. Finally, is important to highlight the vital role of education and workforce development in meeting the escalating demand for specialized professionals in the ATMP field. Collaboration among scientific societies, academic institutions, industry, regulatory bodies and patient groups is crucial for overcoming all these challenges to increase gene and cell therapy activity in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders—preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ntroduction: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are a type of therapies that, in some cases, hold great potential for patients without an effective current therapeutic approach but they also present multiple challenges to payers. While there are many theoretical papers on pricing and reimbursement (P&R) options, original empirical research is very scarce. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive international review of regulatory and P&R decisions taken for all ATMPs with centralized European marketing authorization in March 2022. Methods: A survey was distributed in July 2022 to representatives of 46 countries. Results: Responses were received from 20 countries out of 46 (43.5%). 14 countries reimbursed at least one ATMP. Six countries in this survey reimbursed no ATMPs. Conclusion: Access to ATMPs is uneven across the countries included in this study. This arises from regulatory differences, commercial decisions by marketing authorization holders, and the divergent assessment processes and criteria applied by payers. Moving towards greater equality of access will require cooperation between countries and stakeholders, for example, through the WHO Regional Office for Europe’s Access to Novel Medicines Platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to biomolecular technologies has become an essential requirement to ensure optimal and timely treatment of patients with cancer. This study sought to provide a comprehensive overview of the availability and accessibility of biomolecular technologies to patients, the status of their use and prescription, barriers to access, and potential economic issues related to cost and reimbursement. A total of 201 field reporters from 48 European countries submitted data through an electronic survey tool between July and December 2021. The survey methodology mirrored that from previous ESMO studies addressing the availability and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines, in Europe and worldwide. The preliminary data were posted on the ESMO website for open peer-review, and amendments were incorporated into the final report. Overall, basic single-gene techniques are widely available, whereas access to advanced biomolecular technologies, including large next-generation sequencing panels and complete genomic profiles, is highly heterogeneous. In most countries, advanced biomolecular technologies remain largely inaccessible in clinical practice, are limited to clinical trials or basic research, and associated with progressively increasing cost as the technique becomes more advanced. Differences also exist regarding national sequencing initiatives or molecular tumour boards. The most important barriers to multiple versus single-gene sequencing techniques are the reimbursement of the test (59% versus 24%), and the availability of a suitable medicine, either through reimbursement of treatment (48% versus 30%), off-label treatment (52% versus 35%), or clinical trial enrolment (53% versus 39%). Cost and availability of both treatment and test are the two main factors limiting patients' access to advanced biomolecular technologies and as a consequence to innovative anticancer strategies. In the era of precision medicine, tackling the accessibility to biomolecular technologies is a key step to reduce inequalities to transformative cancer care. • Access to biomolecular technologies is essential to ensure optimal and timely treatment of patients with cancer. • Challenges to access to biomolecular technologies limit patient access to targeted and innovative medicines. • This study provides an overview of availability, accessibility, and costs of genomic testing in oncology in Europe. • It highlights existing disparities in access to biomolecular technologies across countries in Europe. • ESMO aims at reducing inequalities and increasing access to cost-effective biomolecular technologies and relevant therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Occupational therapists are increasingly asked to demonstrate the effectiveness, appropriateness, and efficiency of their interventions to funding bodies. However, the extent to which this is practiced and the health policy context within which such a practice is situated differs internationally. The aim of this scoping review was to establish which quality indicators are used internationally for this purpose., Methods: We conducted a scoping review, limiting our search to Europe and the English-speaking world. To search for suitable literature, we used specialized databases from medicine, health sciences, and related fields, including CINAHL Complete and MEDLINE, as well as free internet search via Google. Furthermore, we contacted national occupational therapy associations from several countries asking for access to documents found within this search that were only accessible to association members., Results: The screening process identified 32 studies and documents from six national contexts. We identified and described process-level indicators, functional outcome indicators, one outcome indicator based on individual goal attainment (the Goal Attainment Scale, or GAS), and PRO-Ergo, a patient-reported experience measure (PREM). There was little information on the use of quality indicators to demonstrate the effectiveness, appropriateness, and efficiency of occupational therapy services to funding bodies in Europe and the English-speaking world that was openly available. The identified process indicators were in most cases not specific to occupational therapy interventions. Functional outcome indicators were highly specific to certain client groups or health conditions and partially appropriate for use in occupational therapy. The GAS was found to be a highly customizable measure which allowed an evaluation on body structure and function levels as well as activity and participation levels. PRO-Ergo was focused on the clients' subjective view and their experience with occupational therapy interventions., Conclusions: All identified quality indicators have advantages and disadvantages. Process-level indicators specific to occupational therapy could be a chance to foster the use of best practice methods. GAS and PRO-Ergo seem to be the most versatile assessment, allowing an evaluation on the level of activity and participation. Functional outcome indicators that cover a broad area of client problems may be useful additional quality indicators for some areas of practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Medication non-adherence jeopardises the effectiveness of chronic therapies and negatively affects financial sustainability of healthcare systems. Available medication adherence-enhancing interventions (MAEIs) are utilised infrequently, and even more rarely reimbursed. The aim of this paper was to review reimbursed MAEIs across selected European countries. Methods: Data on reimbursed MAEIs were collected from European countries at the ENABLE Cost Action expert meeting in September 2021. The identified MAEIs were analysed and clustered according to their characteristics, direct vs. indirect relation to adherence, and the targeted adherence phase. Results: Out of 12 contributing countries, 10 reported reimbursed MAEIs, 28 in total, of which 20 were identified as MAEIs targeting adherence directly. Reimbursed MAEIs were most often performed by either doctors (n = 6), nurses (n = 6), or pharmacists (n = 3). The most common types of MAEIs were education (n = 6), medication regimen management (n = 5), and adherence monitoring feedback (n = 4). Only seven reimbursed MAEIs were technology-mediated, whereas 11 addressed two interlinked phases of medication adherence, i.e., implementation and persistence. Conclusion: Our review highlights the scarcity of reimbursed MAEIs across the selected European countries, and calls for their more frequent use and reimbursement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Canadian government has committed to developing a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases starting in 2022. Considering this announcement, we conducted a comparative analysis to examine patient access to therapies for rare disease in Canada relative to Europe and the U.S.Methods: Given its similarity to the Canadian health care system, we used Europe as the reference point to analyze all of the therapies with an orphan drug designation approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2020. We then contrasted access to these drugs in Canada (Health Canada) and the U.S. (Food and Drug Administration, FDA). We focused on: (1) the number of therapies for rare diseases entering the Canadian market; (2) the percentage of these therapies that are publicly available to Canadians; and (3) the timelines for patients to access these therapies in Canada.Results: Sixty-three approved therapies with an orphan drug designation from the EMA were identified. Fifty-three (84%) of these drugs had also been submitted to the FDA for approval, and 41 (65%) were submitted to Health Canada for approval. In Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. had the highest percentage of publicly reimbursed orphan drugs (84%, 70%, 68%, respectively). In comparison, Ontario (32%), Quebec (25%), and Alberta (25%) had the highest percentage of drugs reimbursed among the Canadian provinces. The shortest median duration (in months) from EMA approval to jurisdictional decision on reimbursement was in Austria (3.2), followed by Germany (4.1), and Finland (6.0). In Canada, the shortest median duration (in months) from regulatory approval to reimbursement was in British Columbia (17.3), Quebec (19.6) and Manitoba (19.6), while the longest duration was in P.E.I (38.5), followed by Nova Scotia (25.9), and Newfoundland (25.1).Conclusions: Our comparative analysis found that relative to the EU Canadians had less frequent and timely access to therapies for rare diseases. This highlights the need for a rare disease strategy in Canada that allows for clear identification and transparent tracking of the pathway for rare disease drugs, and ultimately optimizes the number of patients with access to these therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In total, more than 4000 adult patients are currently treated with PT across Europe annually. • CNS and HNC tumours are the most frequently treated tumour sites. • Most centres use national or institutional guidelines for selecting patients for PT. • Treatments are usually reimbursed by national health care systems. • Most patients are included in prospective data registries and clinical trials. Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, innovation in oncology has created new challenges for pricing and reimbursement systems. Oncology medicines with multiple indications face a number of access challenges: (1) the number of assessments and administrative burden; (2) aligning price to different values of the same product; (3) managing clinical uncertainty at time of launch; and (4) managing budget uncertainty. These challenges impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. Consequently, countries have taken steps to facilitate patient access. Methods: Drawing on the experience across Europe we have reviewed different mechanisms countries have adopted that address these challenges. These include approaches aimed directly at the issue, multi-year-multi-indication (MYMI) agreements (BE, NL), and other approaches to manage access: flexible access agreements for new indications with clinical uncertainty (UK); development of a new agreement for each new indication (IT); and immediate access for new indications and bundled assessments (DE). Results: MYMI agreements are valuable where existing rules mean that every indication faces the same upfront evaluation process that delays patient access. They are also useful in managing budget impact and uncertainty. Other approaches that adopt an indication-specific approach helps manage clinical uncertainty at the time of launch and realise different values for the same product. They can help align price to value, even though indication-based pricing does not exist. Bundled assessments reduce the administrative burden for stakeholders, and the benefits of immediate reimbursement is that patient access is not delayed. Conclusion: The challenges for medicines with multiple indications impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. MYMI agreements have created a more pragmatic approach to HTA for medicines with multiple indications to ensure both fast and broad patient access. Continued innovation in oncology will require further innovative approaches in pricing and reimbursement. It is important that policymakers, payers and manufacturers engage in early discussions and are willing to find new solutions to help accelerate patient access to innovative therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postmortem CT is widely used in the general adult and military populations. It is used extensively in pediatric death investigations in Europe and Asia, but distinctive challenges are encountered when launching a postmortem imaging program in the United States. We describe the issues we have encountered specific to establishing a pediatric postmortem imaging service in this country and propose potential solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Digital health applications (DiGA) supporting the management of diabetes are among the most commonly available digital health technologies. However, transparent quality assurance of DiGA and clinical proof of a positive healthcare effect is often missing, which creates skepticism of some stakeholders regarding the usage and reimbursement of these applications., Methods: This article reviews the recently established fast-track integration of DiGA in the German reimbursement market, with emphasis on the current impact for manufacturers, healthcare providers, and people with diabetes. The German DiGA fast track is contextualised with corresponding initiatives in Europe., Results: The option of a provisional prescription and reimbursement of DiGA while proving a positive healthcare effect in parallel may expedite the adoption of DiGA in Germany and beyond. However, hurdles for a permanent prescription and reimbursement of DiGA are high and only one of 12 that have achieved this status specifically addresses people with diabetes., Conclusion: The DiGA fast track needs to be further enhanced to cope with remaining skepticism and contribute even more to a value-based diabetes care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: F.S. and T.A.D. are full-time employees of Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung GmbH. L.H. is a shareholder of Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung GmbH. F.S. is a member of the EIT Health Supervisory Board. J.-M.B. and N.G. are full-time employees of the EIT Health e.V. and the EIT Health Colocation Center Germany–Switzerland, respectively. F.S., T.A.-D., C.S., J.S., M.J., and D.M.-W. are part of the EIT Health-funded RealWorld4Clinic consortium.

Objective: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data.Methods: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions.Results: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences.Conclusion: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reimbursement is a key factor in defining which resources are made available to ensure quality, efficiency, availability, and access to specific health-care interventions. This Policy Review assesses publicly funded radiotherapy reimbursement systems in Europe. We did a survey of the national societies of radiation oncology in Europe, focusing on the general features and global structure of the reimbursement system, the coverage scope, and level for typical indications. The annual expenditure covering radiotherapy in each country was also collected. Most countries have a predominantly budgetary-based system. Variability was the major finding, both in the components of the treatment considered for reimbursement, and in the fees paid for specific treatment techniques, fractionations, and indications. Annual expenses for radiotherapy, including capital investment, available in 12 countries, represented between 4·3% and 12·3% (average 7·8%) of the cancer care budget. Although an essential pillar in multidisciplinary oncology, radiotherapy is an inexpensive modality with a modest contribution to total cancer care costs. Scientific societies and policy makers across Europe need to discuss new strategies for reimbursement, combining flexibility with incentives to improve productivity and quality, allowing radiation oncology services to follow evolving evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics., Methods: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders., Results: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe ( N  = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature., Conclusions: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

This article analyzes the availability of different diagnostic procedures of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the reimbursement landscape of drugs for NSCLC in countries of central and southeastern Europe (CEE). A survey was conducted by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. Results of the survey show that both availability and reimbursement of diagnoses of molecular alterations in NSCLC, the detection of which is essential for therapeutic decisions, varies widely between countries of CEE. Not only is "reflex" testing often substituted by analyses performed only "on demand," but reimbursement of such assessments varies widely between unavailability and payments by the health care system or even pharmaceutical companies. It was concluded that a structured access to testing and reimbursement should be the aim in order to provide patients with appropriate therapeutic options. Implications for Practice: This article provides an overview of the limitations in lung cancer treatment in countries of central and southeastern Europe, as well as the reimbursement status of various lung cancer treatment regimens in these countries, which directly impacts treatment options. This article describes the results of a survey conducted by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group to assess the availability of and reimbursement for molecular diagnostic tests and targeted therapies in non‐small cell lung cancer across ten countries in central and southeastern Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The adoption of digital health care within health systems is determined by various factors, including pricing and reimbursement. The reimbursement landscape for digital health in Europe remains underresearched. Although various emergency reimbursement decisions were made during the COVID-19 pandemic to enable health care delivery through videoconferencing and asynchronous care (eg, digital apps), research so far has primarily focused on the policy innovations that facilitated this outside of Europe., Objective: This study examines the digital health reimbursement strategies in 8 European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and Israel., Methods: We mapped available digital health reimbursement strategies using a scoping review and policy mapping framework. We reviewed the literature on the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and Web of Science databases. Supplementary records were identified through Google Scholar and country experts., Results: Our search strategy yielded a total of 1559 records, of which 40 (2.57%) were ultimately included in this study. As of August 2023, digital health solutions are reimbursable to some extent in all studied countries except Poland, although the mechanism of reimbursement differs significantly across countries. At the time of writing, the pricing of digital health solutions was mostly determined through discussions between national or regional committees and the manufacturers of digital health solutions in the absence of value-based assessment mechanisms. Financing digital health solutions outside traditional reimbursement schemes was possible in all studied countries except Poland and typically occurs via health innovation or digital health-specific funding schemes. European countries have value-based pricing frameworks that range from nonexistent to embryonic., Conclusions: Studied countries show divergent approaches to the reimbursement of digital health solutions. These differences may complicate the ability of patients to seek cross-country health care in another country, even if a digital health app is available in both countries. Furthermore, the fragmented environment will present challenges for developers of such solutions, as they look to expand their impact across countries and health systems. An increased emphasis on developing a clear conceptualization of digital health, as well as value-based pricing and reimbursement mechanisms, is needed for the sustainable integration of digital health. This study can therein serve as a basis for further, more detailed research as the field of digital health reimbursement evolves., (©Robin van Kessel, Divya Srivastava, Ilias Kyriopoulos, Giovanni Monti, David Novillo-Ortiz, Ran Milman, Wojciech Wilhelm Zhang-Czabanowski, Greta Nasi, Ariel Dora Stern, George Wharton, Elias Mossialos. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 29.09.2023.)

Leveraging real-world data (RWD) for drug access is necessary to overcome a key challenge of modern precision oncology: tackling numerous low-prevalence oncogenic mutations across cancers. Withholding a potentially active medication in patients with rare mutations for the sake of control chemotherapy or "best" supportive care is neither practicable nor ethically justifiable anymore, particularly as RWD could meanwhile be used instead, according to scientific principles outlined by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other stakeholders. However, practical implementation varies, with occasionally opposite recommendations based on the same evidence in different countries. In the face of growing need for precision drugs, more transparency of evaluation, a priori availability of guidance for the academia and industry, as well as a harmonized framework for health technology assessment across the European Union (EU) are imperative. These could in turn trigger infrastructural changes in national and pan-European registries, cancer management guidelines (e.g., frequency of routine radiologic restaging, inclusion of patient-reported outcomes), and the health data space, to ensure conformity with declared standards and facilitate extraction of RWD sets (including patient-level data) suitable for approval and pricing with minimal effort. For an EU-wide unification of precision cancer medicine, collective negotiation of drug supply contracts and funding solidarity would additionally be required to handle the financial burden. According to experience from pivotal European programs, off-label use could potentially also be harmonized across EU-states to accelerate availability of novel drugs, streamline collection of valuable RWD, and mitigate related costs through wider partnerships with pharmaceutical companies., (© 2023 The Authors. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: To assess pricing and reimbursement policies specific to orphan medicines and the availability and distribution settings of ten recently authorised medicinal products suitable for outpatient care with orphan status and centralised marketing authorisation in Europe, and whether patients receive these products free of charge or have to pay some or all of the costs themselves.Methods: Web survey to authorities and representatives of third party payers in the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) network in April 2016.Results: In most of the 24 countries, special policies were not implemented in the assessment of reimbursement status (22 countries) or in the pricing (20 countries) of orphan medicines. An average of five of the ten recently authorised products per country were available for outpatient care. Products were dispensed from community pharmacies in eight countries and from health care units in five countries. In four countries, both distribution settings were used. When products were dispensed from community pharmacies, patients typically paid some of the price themselves. Products dispensed from health care units were often free of charge for patients.Conclusions: Most European countries had not implemented pricing and reimbursement policies specific to orphan medicines. The availability of orphan products varied between countries. It is important to discuss whether orphan medicines should be considered as a separate group in the reimbursement regulations in order to secure patient access to these medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 21 May 2015 entered into force Law no. 113 regarding amendments and completions to Law no. 334 of 2006 on financing the activity of political parties and electoral campaigns. By the normative act in force, namely Law no. 113 of 2015, a number of Greco recommendations have been implemented and some measures have been regulated to reimburse from the state budget the expenditures for the electoral campaign belonging to political parties and independent candidates that meet a number of criteria of representativeness established by law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study is to investigate the role of health-related quality-of-life (QoL) data in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of new anti-cancer drugs across European jurisdictions, during health technology assessment procedures.Methods: Comparative analysis of guidelines and publicly available REAs in six European jurisdictions of anti-cancer drugs approved by EMA between 2011 and 2013.Results: Fourteen anti-cancer drugs were included, adding up to 79 REAs. Whilst all guidelines state that QoL is a relevant endpoint to determine the relative effectiveness of new cancer drugs, QoL data were included in only 54% of the 79 reports and their impact on the recommendations was limited.Conclusions: Whilst national guidelines recognize the relevance of QoL to determine the relative effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs, this is not well-reflected in current assessments. Developing and implementing into REAs specific evidence requirements for QoL data would improve the use of this patient-centred outcome in future reimbursement and pricing decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to investigate how much the market performance of drug therapies is influenced by their scientific evidence and price level. Compared to the seemingly simple objective, performing the analysis in the pharmaceutical industry makes the evaluation very complex. Examining the purchase decision process in the prescription drug market, besides the patient as the final consumer, the prescribing physician has the largest decision potential. In addition, the authors cannot ignore the healthcare system financing the therapy either, not to mention the interlacements of regulations, manufacturer interests, their marketing potential and marketing activities. This complexity makes it impossible to describe the pharmaceutical industry in uniform terms. The literature search also confirms that the mentioned complexity makes it hard to draw unambiguous conclusions. In spite of that -with a positivistic approach- the authors live with the assumption that scientific evidence (better efficacy and safety profile) should be awarded on the market on the aggregate level. It is inevitable to clarify at the very beginning that the authors investigate active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and not brands in the recent study. With all this in mind, their intention is to introduce a novel approach for the evaluation of the relationship between the product characteristics (clinical evidence of APIs) and their market performance. In order to examine the relationship the authors involved APIs that belong to the same indication group, having the same mechanism of action and which have been in the generic competition for years after their patent have expired. As a model they perform the analysis with antihypertensive drug therapies. The authors consider that it is possible to rank the active ingredients of drug therapies on the basis of their efficacy and safety, based on relevant clinical literature. The result of ranking serves as the starting point of the analysis. Unequivocally, the authors do not forget about the additional factors that significantly influence the market performance of APIs, but deliberately do not involve these factors in the recent analysis. These factors are the different reimbursement and funding policies, marketing activity of the manufacturers, country-of-origin effect, the impact of clinical guidelines and clinical literature, and their effect on each other. There is one exception, since the article partially deals with the influence of price level on the market performance. In contrast with the majority of the available literature, this study aims to explore the identifiable patterns by investigating the European pharmaceutical market on system-level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Policymakers and researchers frequently compare the prices of medicines between countries. Such comparisons often serve as barometers of how pricing and reimbursement policies are performing. The aim of this study was to examine methodological challenges to comparing generic drug prices.Methods: We calculated all commonly used price indices based on 2013 IMS Health data on sales of 3156 generic drugs in seven European countries.Results: There were large differences in generic drug prices between countries. However, the results varied depending on the choice of index, base country, unit of volume, method of currency conversion, and therapeutic category. The results also differed depending on whether one looked at the prices charged by manufacturers or those charged by pharmacists.Conclusions: Price indices are a useful statistical approach for comparing drug prices across countries, but researchers and policymakers should interpret price indices with caution given their limitations. Price-index results are highly sensitive to the choice of method and sample. More research is needed to determine the drivers of price differences between countries. The data suggest that some governments should aim to reduce distribution costs for generic drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP's is realised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry., Methods: We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context., Findings: Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence., Discussion and Conclusions: CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries., Methods: Built on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts., Results: A total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region's context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience., Conclusion: In this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations., Competing Interests: Patient involvement should be open to all and non-discriminative on the grounds of previous experience and presumed support time needed. There are multiple initiatives locally and internationally aiming to ease patient recruitment with education, coordination and/or databases. We recommend organisations leading these initiatives to come together and join forces on the base of commonly agreed principles. We also recommend local HTA/payer organisations to set up their open call for local patients, carers, patient advocates, patient experts and patient organisation representatives to be able to express interest. We suggest to actively promote this opportunity to harder to reach patient communities and a periodical revision of the registry. Regarding ethical and compliance issues, a clear policy on financial and other conflicts of interests (how interests are declared, assessed and addressed) should be in place. Those registered should complete a declaration of interest form both on personal and organisational level conflict of interests and update it periodically. It should be clarified what kind of involvement with industry (e.g., attending a single advisory board meeting with a company versus only in case of direct conflict of interest) would impose restrictions on how a person can be involved in the HTA and decision-making process. We argue that in situations where patient experts and/or patient organisation representatives are difficult to identify, a softer approach should be taken and special measures could be proposed, equivalent to the “expert witness” status at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Expert witnesses can be heard or participate in the deliberations but are not allowed to take part in the vote. However, the consequences of not being transparent with potential conflict of interests should be serious and communicated clearly from the beginning.KrT, RH, ZP, BN, and ZK were employed by Syreon Research Institute. At the time of the study IJ was the President of the European Patients’ Forum Youth Group, a Board of Trustees member at the EUPATI Foundation and employed by Syreon Research Institute. MN is the founder and co-owner of HealthQuest, a health technology assessment and market access consulting company. DaD is a Trustee of Thrombosis UK. TB was employed by Patvocates GmbH. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Jakab, Dimitrova, Houÿez, Bereczky, Fövényes, Maravic, Belina, Andriciuc, Tóth, Piniazhko, Hren, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, Czech, Tesar, Niewada, Lorenzovici, Kamusheva, Manova, Savova, Mitkova, Tachkov, Németh, Petykó, Dawoud, Delnoij, Knies, Goettsch and Kaló.)

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product's value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Time to reimbursement (TTR) of new anticancer medicines differs between countries and contributes to unequal access. We aimed to investigate TTR of new anticancer medicines and explore factors influencing the reimbursement process in seven high-income European countries., Materials and Methods: We carried out a retrospective case study of anticancer medicines with European Union Market Access (EU-MA) and a positive Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use opinion from 2016 until 2021 with subsequent national reimbursement approval (NRA). The National Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and reimbursement websites of Germany, France, UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland were used to identify TTR, defined as time from EU-MA to NRA. Additionally, we investigated medication-, country-, indication- and pharma-related factors potentially influencing TTR., Results: Thirty-five medicines were identified for which TTR ranged from -81 days to 2320 days (median 407 days). At data cut-off, 16 (46%) were reimbursed in all seven countries. Overall, the shortest TTR was in Germany (median 3 days, all medicines reimbursed <5 days). The time limit for reimbursement of 180 days stated by the Council of European Communities after the EU-MA (EU Transparency Directive) was met for 100% of included medicines in Germany, 51% in France, 29% in the UK and the Netherlands, 14% in Switzerland, 6% in Norway and 3% in Belgium. The TTR was significantly different between countries (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with shorter TTR were higher gross domestic product (GDP), absence of a pre-assessment procedure and submission by a big pharmaceutical company., Conclusions: TTR of anticancer medicines varies significantly between seven high-income European countries and leads to inequality in access. Among explored medication-, country-, indication- and pharma-related factors we found that a high GDP, the absence of a pre-assessment procedure and submission by big pharmaceutical companies were associated with shorter TTR., Competing Interests: Role of the funder The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Disclosure HCP and CEMH are members of the platform ‘Medicine for Society’ (see funding), CEMH reports to be involved in pre-marketing studies with Genzyme, Protalix and Idorsia. HWML declared a consultant or advisory role: Amphera, AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, Daiichy-Sankyo, Dragonfly, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Servier and a research funding and/or medication supply: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Incyte, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Philips, Roche, Servier; and a speaker role: Astellas, Benecke, Daiichy-Sankyo, JAAP, Medtalks, Novartis, Travel Congress Management B.V. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to review and compare types of reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs issued by eight European health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and the reimbursement status of these drugs in the corresponding countries. Separate calculations were also performed for three sub-groups: ultra-orphan drugs, oncology orphan drugs and other (non-ultra, non-oncology) orphan drugs.Results: We reviewed drugs authorized by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) between 1 November 2002 and 30 September 2015. Among these, we identified 101 orphan drugs. Seventy-nine of them were assessed by eight European HTA agencies. The average rates of positive, conditional and negative reimbursement recommendations issued by these agencies were 55.7 %, 15.3 % and 29.0 %, respectively. On average, 21.2 % of EMA-authorized orphan drugs were reimbursed in the eight European countries studied: 49.0 % of those with positive, 53.6 % of those with conditional, and 16.0 % of those with negative reimbursement recommendations. In addition, 5.4 % of orphan drugs that had not been assessed by any of the eight HTA agencies were also reimbursed. The shares of oncology, ultra, and other orphan drugs that were assessed by HTA agencies were similar, with the lowest share observed in ultra-orphan drugs (72 %) and the highest in other orphan drugs (80 %). In terms of reimbursement, 20 % of oncology orphan drugs, 25 % of ultra-orphan drugs and 21 % of other orphan drugs were reimbursed.Conclusions: Reimbursement of orphan drugs does not always correspond to the type of HTA recommendation. While the highest rate of reimbursement is observed (unsurprisingly) among drugs with positive or conditional recommendation, a high rate of reimbursement (11 %) is also observed among ultra-orphan drugs that had never been assessed by any HTA agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a debate on the added clinical value of new, expensive, anticancer treatments. Among European decision makers, the relevance of commonly used end points in trials, especially overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL), varies, leading to the available evidence being valued differently. This research studies the extent to which the value of end points for cancer medicines differs among European decision makers. Methods: We compared guidelines and relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of medicines for pricing or reimbursement decisions in England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, and Scotland. Anticancer medicines that received marketing authorization in Europe between 2011 and 2013 with at least four available national REAs were evaluated. A total of 79 REAs were included. Results: Health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines indicate a preference for clinically and patient relevant end points such as OS and QoL above surrogate end points. Most guidelines do not specify whether PFS is considered a surrogate or patient-relevant end point. The number of REAs included per jurisdiction varied between 7 (The Netherlands) and 18 (Germany). OS data were included in all REAs and were the preferred end point by HTA agencies, but these data were not always mature or robust. QoL data are included in only 54% of the REAs, with a limited impact on the recommendations. PFS data are included in 70% of the REAs, but the extent to which HTA agencies find PFS relevant varies. Conclusion(s): European decision-making on relative effectiveness of anticancer medicines is affected by a gap in requested versus available clinical evidence, mainly because the regulator is willing to accept some degree of clinical uncertainty. A multi-stakeholder debate would be essential to align concrete robust evidence requirements in oncology and a collectively shared definition for relevant clinical benefit, which will benefit patients and society in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In addition to cost-effectiveness, national guidelines often include other factors in reimbursement decisions. However, weights attached to these are rarely quantified, thus decisions can depend strongly on decision-maker preferences.Objective: To explore the preferences of policymakers and healthcare professionals involved in the decision-making process for different efficiency and equity attributes of interventions and to analyse cross-country differences.Method: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were carried out in Austria, Hungary, and Norway with policymakers and other professionals working in the health industry (N = 153 respondents). Interventions were described in terms of different efficiency and equity attributes (severity of disease, target age of the population and willingness to subsidise others, potential number of beneficiaries, individual health benefit, and cost-effectiveness). Parameter estimates from the DCE were used to calculate the probability of choosing a healthcare intervention with different characteristics, and to rank different equity and efficiency attributes according to their importance.Results: In all three countries, cost-effectiveness, individual health benefit and severity of the disease were significant and equally important determinants of decisions. All countries show preferences for interventions targeting young and middle aged populations compared to those targeting populations over 60. However, decision-makers in Austria and Hungary show preferences more oriented to efficiency than equity, while those in Norway show equal preferences for equity and efficiency attributes.Conclusion: We find that factors other than cost-effectiveness seem to play an equally important role in decision-making. We also find evidence of cross-country differences in the weight of efficiency and equity attributes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite common enthusiasm for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), its application in Europe is quite diverse. Restrictions are attributed to a number of factors, like limited access, deficits in training, and incomplete reimbursement. Aim of this study is to perform a systematic summary of the representation of CMR in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Methods: Twenty-nine ESC guidelines were screened for the terms "magnetic", "MRI", "CMR", "MR" and "imaging". As 3 topics were published twice (endocarditis, pulmonary hypertension, NSTEMI), 26 guidelines were finally included. MRI in the context of non-cardiovascular examinations was not recognized. The main CMR-related conclusions and, if available, the level of evidence and the class of recommendation were extracted. Results: Fourteen of the 26 guidelines (53.8 %) contain specific recommendations regarding the use of CMR. Nine guidelines (34.6 %) mention CMR in the text, and 3 (11.5 %) do not mention CMR. The 14 guidelines with recommendations regarding the use of CMR contain 39 class-I recommendations, 12 class-IIa recommendations, 10 class-IIb recommendations and 2 class-III recommendations. Most of the recommendations have evidence level C (41/63; 65.1 %), followed by level B (16/63; 25.4 %) and level A (6/63; 9.5 %). The four guidelines, which absolutely contained most recommendations for CMR, were stable coronary artery disease (n = 14), aortic diseases (n = 9), HCM (n = 7) and myocardial revascularization (n = 7). Conclusions: CMR is represented in the majority of the ESC guidelines. They contain many recommendations in favour of the use of CMR in specific scenarios. Issues regarding access, training and reimbursement have to be solved to offer CMR to patients in accordance with the ESC guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The present study aims to assess clinical and regulatory variables that would influence pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions for Orphan Drugs (ODs) in Spain. ODs approved by the European Commission (EC) between 2006 and 2021 were classified according to their P&R status in Spain: approved, undergoing decision and rejected. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess the potential association between clinical and regulatory variables and P&R decision of ODs in Spain: therapeutic area, rarity of disease, existence of alternative therapies, availability of survival-related outcomes, safety profile, type of population, conditional approval status granted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and a positive Therapeutic Positioning Report (TPR) opinion., Results: 111 ODs have been approved by the EC and have obtained marketing authorisation in Spain between 2006 and 2021. Out of the 111 ODs, 57 (51.4%) were reimbursed, 24 (21.6%) were undergoing decision and 30 (27%) were rejected. According to the statistical analysis, ODs with a positive TPR conclusion (p-value < 0.01), not subject to a conditional approval by the EMA (p-value < 0.05) and approved without the obligation to conduct a post-authorisation safety study (PASS) (p-value < 0.05), were statistically significant, and therefore, would be more likely to obtain P&R approval in Spain., Conclusions: This study shows that the TPR plays a key role in the P&R process in Spain and highlights that traditional evaluation tools, such us safety and efficacy, were the main drivers of P&R decisions for ODs. A positive conclusion of the TPR, non-conditional approval by the EMA and no obligation for a PASS seems to favourably affect P&R decisions in Spain., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

This paper reviews the main pricing policies in Latin American countries, discussing their shortcomings. It also gives an overview of the most common pricing and reimbursement policies in Europe and describes in detail three well-established approaches - international price referencing, value-based pricing, including setting up of health technology assessment, and generic and biosimilar policies - building on country examples.

Purpose: Targeted cancer therapies (TCTs) are drugs that specifically act on molecular targets within the cancer cell, causing its regression and/or destruction. Although TCTs offer clinically important gains in survival in one of the most challenging therapeutic areas, these gains are followed by considerable increases in health care expenditures. The aim of this study was to identify differences in the recommendations for TCTs in 3 European health care systems (Serbian, Scottish, and Dutch) and to examine the role of pharmacoeconomic (PE) assessments in such recommendations. Methods: A list of currently approved TCTs cited from the European Medicines Agency was crossreferenced with drug reimbursement reports issued by the National Health Insurance Fund for Serbia, the Scottish Medicines Consortium for Scotland, and the National Health Institute for the Netherlands. The following key variables were gathered from the reports: drug indication, registration status, reimbursement status, and outcome of the PE evaluation. Findings: There were 41 TCTs approved by the European Medicines Agency for 70 cancer indications. Of the total number of TCT indications, 20 were reimbursed in Serbia, and 25 are still without a decision from the national agency. The remaining TCT indications (n = 25) are not registered in Serbia. None of the submissions or the PE analyses were publicly available. The Scottish Medicines Consortium positively assessed 26 TCT indications and rejected 30. All appraisals were published, and the majority contained full PE assessments. Finally, the Dutch agency accepted 60 TCT indications and disapproved the use of 1. The majority of reimbursed drugs were exempted from PE evaluation in accordance with 2 recent policies regarding expensive hospital drugs. Implications: In the 3 examined health care systems, the reimbursement status of the TCTs differed significantly. Level of PE application within the TCT evaluation procedures seemed to largely affect the final reimbursement decisions. Although, there are special policies in the Netherlands that enabled fast access for 98% of the TCTs that applied for reimbursement, a clear definition of cost-effectiveness threshold and strict requirements for full cost utility assessments in Scotland led to acceptance of only 46% of the TCT submissions. More precise PE guidelines must still be designed for TCT reimbursement in Serbia. Guidelines must account for specific epidemic and economic conditions of the country and could build on the experiences of Scotland and the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries require cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to support reimbursement formulary listing. However, CUAs informed by local evidence are often unavailable, and the cost-effectiveness of the several currently reimbursed biologicals is unclear. Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness as multiples of per capita GDP/quality adjusted life years (QALY) of four biologicals (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab) currently reimbursed in six CEE countries in six inflammatory rheumatoid and bowel disease conditions. Methods: Systematic literature review of published cost-utility analyses in the selected conditions, using the United Kingdom (UK) as reference country and with study selection criteria set to optimize the transfer of results to the CEEs. Prices in each CEE country were pro-rated against UK prices using purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted per capita GDP, and local GDP per capita/QALY ratios estimated. Results: Central and Eastern European countries list prices were 144-333 % higher than pro rata prices. Out of 85 CUAs identified by previous systematic literature reviews, 15 were selected as a convenience sample for estimating the cost-effectiveness of biologicals in the CEE countries in terms of per capita GDP/QALY. Per capita GDP/QALY values varied from 0.42 to 6.4 across countries and conditions (Bulgaria: 0.97-6.38; Czech Republic: 0.42-2.76; Hungary: 0.54-3.54; Poland: 0.59-3.90; Romania: 0.77-5.07; Slovakia: 0.55-3.61). Conclusion: While results must be interpreted with caution, calculating pro rata (cost-effective) prices and per capita GDP/QALY ratios based on CUAs can aid reimbursement decision-making in the absence of analyses using local data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health economists have written extensively on the design and implementation of coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes and have proposed theoretical frameworks based on cost-effectiveness modeling and value of information analysis. CED may aid decision-makers when there is uncertainty about the (cost-)effectiveness of a new health technology at the time of reimbursement. Medical devices are potential candidates for CED schemes, as regulatory regimes do not usually require the same level of efficacy and safety data normally needed for pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this research is to assess whether the actual practice of CED for medical devices in Europe meets the theoretical principles proposed by health economists and whether theory and practice can be more closely aligned. Based on decision-makers' perceptions of the challenges associated with CED schemes, plus examples from the schemes themselves, we discuss a series of proposals for assessing the desirability of schemes, their design, implementation, and evaluation. These proposals, while reflecting the practical challenges with developing CED programs, embody many of the principles suggested by economists and should support decision-makers in dealing with uncertainty about the real-world performance of devices., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Abstract: Aims: Case payment mechanisms have become the principal means of remunerating hospitals in most developed countries. The purpose of this study was to make an international comparison of reimbursement for breast reconstructive surgery. Methods: We analysed remuneration for unilateral and bilateral female breast reconstruction (pedicled flaps, free flaps, alloplastic procedures) across five different European countries. National grouper software was used to identify Diagnosis Related Groups from which the proceeds were derived. Results: The mean reimbursement was € 5593 for pedicled flaps, € 9149 for free flaps and € 4037 for implant-based reconstructions. The highest payments were in Sweden and the lowest in Italy. When adjusting payments by purchasing power parities, the relation among the countries did not change. The Austrian system makes a clear distinction between one-stage and two-stage delayed reconstructive interventions whereas reimbursement in other countries favoured a two-stage approach. Only one of five national reimbursement systems distinguishes between unilateral and bilateral reconstructions. Conclusions: Across a spectrum of European countries, reimbursement for breast reconstruction was based on similar procedure-specific systems, although there was a wide variation in tariffs and consideration of other factors such as underlying diagnosis. As delivery of healthcare becomes more rationalised, there is a need for individualised reimbursement which correlates directly with activity. Drawing on the experience of different healthcare systems may lead to development of a more robust and fair system of reimbursement. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Copyright of Schmollers Jahrbuch is the property of Duncker & Humblot GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to provide an overview about the existence and types of discounts and rebates granted to public payers by the pharmaceutical industry in European countries. Methods: Data were collected via a questionnaire in 2011. Officials from public authorities for pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement represented in the PPRI (Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information) network provided the information and reviewed the compilation. Results: Information is available from 31 European countries. Discounts and rebates granted to public payers by the pharmaceutical industry were reported for 25 European countries. Such discounts exist both in the in- and out-patient sectors in 21 countries and in the in-patient sector only in four countries. Six countries reported not having any regulations or agreements regarding the discounts and rebates granted by industry. The most common discounts and rebates are price reductions and refunds linked to sales volume but types such as in-kind support, price-volume and risk-sharing agreements are also in place. A mix of various types of discounts and rebates is common. Many of these arrangements are confidential. Differences regarding types, the organizational and legal framework, validity and frequency of updates and the amount of the discounts and rebates granted exist among the surveyed countries. Conclusions: In Europe, discounts and rebates on medicines granted by the pharmaceutical industry to public payers are common tools to contain public pharmaceutical expenditure. They appear to be used as a complimentary measure when price regulation does not achieve the desired results and in the few European countries with no or limited price regulation. The confidential character of many of these arrangements impedes transparency and may lead to a distortion of medicines prices. An analysis of the impact on these measures is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compensation schemes in which lawyer's fees are contingent on winning the suit are becoming increasingly popular throughout Europe. At the same time, the British rule of legal cost allocation is applicable in many European countries. As a result, it is of policy relevance how their coexistence may be harmonized. This paper uses the litigation-contest framework to analyze the consequences of three different cost-allocation regimes if a plaintiff's attorney is compensated on a contingent fee basis. We compare the equilibrium contest effort, justice, and payoffs for affected parties in the different regimes and find arguments in favor of not reimbursing contingent fees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As part of the EuroDRG project, researchers from 11 countries (i.e., Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Spain) compared how their diagnosis-related groups (DRG) systems deal with appendectomy patients. The study aims to assist surgeons and national authorities to optimize their DRG systems. Methods: National or regional databases were used to identify hospital cases with a diagnosis of appendicitis treated with a procedure of appendectomy. DRG classification algorithms and indicators of resource consumption were compared for those DRGs that together comprised at least 97% of cases. Six standardized case vignettes were defined, and quasi prices according to national DRG-based hospital payment systems were ascertained. Results: European DRG systems vary widely: they classify appendectomy patients according to different sets of variables (between two and six classification variables) into diverging numbers of DRGs (between two and 11 DRGs). The most complex DRG is valued 5.1 times more resource intensive than an index case in France but only 1.1 times more resource intensive than an index case in Finland. Comparisons of quasi prices for the case vignettes show that hypothetical payments for the most complex case vignette amount to only 1,005€ in Poland but to 12,304€ in France. Conclusions: Large variations in the classification of appendectomy patients raise concerns whether all systems rely on the most appropriate classification variables. Surgeons and national DRG authorities should consider how other countries' DRG systems classify appendectomy patients in order to optimize their DRG system and to ensure fair and appropriate reimbursement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]