Publication:
Innovative reimbursement tools for cancer treatments. Analyzing the feasibility of single price versus indication based pricing in multi indication products. The case of Spain

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2022
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Citations
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
The increase in pharmaceutical spending and more specifically in pharmaceutical spending in hospitals is a growing concern for policy makers. The main determinant of this increase is the adoption of healthcare technology, with innovative pharmaceutical treatments accounting for a significant part of this increase in spending, and among these, cancer treatments being of the most important. At the same time, it is increasingly common to have in the market multi-indication oncology treatments, which do not normally offer the same clinical benefit across indications, and as a consequence, it is not possible to reflect the real value of the medicine under a single cross-indication price, constituting a challenge for pricing and reimbursement responsible agents. The health economics literature and the international experience have explored different approaches to bear this challenge, such as indication based pricing, multi year multi indication agreements, or the use of specific funds. The goal of this report is to analyse the practical feasibility of the implementation in Spain of two of them: indication based pricing (with different listed prices per indication for multi-indication products), or a unique listed price for all of them. We perform this analysis through the composition of a multidisciplinary Expert Panel that met twice during 2021 in directed discussions. By explicit request of the Members in the Expert Panel, this report does not endorse any specific recommendation for one or another alternative but just make an analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each system. The alternative of a unique single price for all the indications of a product is in principle easier to manage, and in terms of regulation, it would not need major modifications to be operative and reduces the risk of arbitrage. However, it moves away from the valuebased pricing and may result in strategic behaviour in companies that may derive in delay in access for some patients. If pursued, a weighted average taking into account the added therapeutic value and the expected number of patients that could be benefitted per indication is recommended, always avoiding the only use of a price-volume agreement. The price should be revised every time that there is a new indication approved and periodically to check new clinical evidence on the indications as well as possible deviations in the estimation of the demand. The alternative of indication based pricing (IBP) promotes value-based pricing, through a different price, based on the value evidenced in the economic evaluation exercise to each approved indication, and in the long run, it improves social welfare and provides the right incentives for innovation and a higher degree of competition in markets. However, its implementation would need some normative modifications, may result in incentives for arbitrage, greater administrative costs in the purchasing and payment process, and also in monitoring and registering the specific use per indication. At the same time, it can produce some reluctance to the change in local and regional providers and payers who are already negotiating (and should continue to do so) indication-specific discounts. As in the case of single price, prices under IBP should also be revised periodically. Both alternatives may admit exceptions in order to improve their results. IBP is unfeasible for agnostic tumours or when the administration of the medicine is not independent by indications. Single price is problematic when differences in added value may derive in lack of incentives for commercialization of a new indication, with the loss of access to the medicine for affected patients. Interestingly, both alternatives share some common challenges for the appropriate implementation. They both rely on the existence of regulation promoting systematic, rapid and homogeneous economic evaluations or at least the characterization of the therapeutic value for all innovative products and all the new indications of them and periodic revisions, and on the existence of a structure capable of performing in a timely manner. That is a major challenge in Spain, where economic evaluation has not yet been implemented in a precise, sophisticated and transparent manner (in the simpler situation of only one listed price per product). It will become much more complicated in the case of indication specific economic evaluations. REvalMed is a new network launched in 2020 by the Ministry of Health to solve this gap, with the goal of adding economic evaluation to therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs). However, it is still too early to determine its success with a low number of economic evaluations published so far. Another common challenge shared by both alternatives is the need of a Registry of Clinical Data, which should include specific and as complete as possible information regarding the indication for which the product is purchased, and monitor its use for patients per indication, the added value and health outcomes obtained, or adverse effects. That registry should help to the development of economic evaluations to set and revise prices, to identify any deviation from the expected volume in previous budget impact analysis, or to update assessment of added value with new clinical information. That registry should be as homogeneous as possible for all Autonomous Communities. The initial investment for composing that registry may be costly. The question of whether the cost of this registration should be shared between the companies and the regulator or the provider, or whether it should be borne entirely by one of these parties, is a matter to be debated. Furthermore, the main goal of that registry should be its use for improving clinical benefits for patients and not for price setting (also). If the main objective were price setting, this could increase resistance to the implementation of this register from various stakeholders at the local and regional level, as they already negotiate prices. In order to attain an appropriate implementation of any of the two alternatives, Spain should provide a regulatory and structural framework in which a registry of clinical data be operative and help the performance of systematic, rapid and homogeneous economic evaluation exercises for all new indications in order to help in their price setting, and periodically, in their revisions. Both alternatives could be used together with other complementary methodologies such as budget impact analysis, the analysis of the degree of competition at the different indications, or even multi criteria decision analysis or cancer specific funds that have hardly been presented in this report.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Abásolo Alesson I, et al. 2020. Manifiesto pro Autoridad Independiente de Evaluación de Prácticas y Polí ticas Sanitarias. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wopclsm5AJ8_WpJo80tpHnbf4BK94YCy/view. AIFA. 2015. Registri Farmaci sottoposti a monitoraggio. Available at: http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/it/con tent/registri-farmaci-sottoposti-monitoraggio AiREF. 2020. Gasto hospitalario del Sistema Nacional de Salud: Farmacia e inversión en bienes de equipo. Madrid. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato. 2014. I760 - Farmaci: Antitrust sanziona Roche e Novartis per un cartello che ha condizionato le vendite dei principali prodotti destinati alla cura della vista, Avastin e Lucentis. oltre 180 milioni di euro di multa. Available at: https://www.agcm.it/media/comunicati-stampa/2014/3/alias-6801. Autorité de la concurrence. 2020. Décision 20-D-11 du 09 septembre 2020 relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur du traitement de la dégénérescence maculaire liée à l’âge (DMLA). Available at: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/decision/relative-despratiques-mises-en-oeuvre-dans-le-secteur-du-traitement-de-la-degenerescence. Cancer Drugs Fund. 2021. Cancer Drugs Fund activity update Q4 2020-21. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/cancer-drugs-fund-cdf-activity-update/#heading-1. Campillo-Artero C, García-Armesto S, Bernal-Delgado E. 2016. The merry-go-round of approval, pricing and reimbursement of drugs against the Hepatitis C virus infection in Spain. Health Policy 120(9): 975-981. Campillo-Artero C, Puig-Junoy J, Segú-Tolsa JL, Trapero-Bertran M. 2020. Price Models for Multi-indication Drugs: A Systematic Review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 18(1): 47-56. Clopés Estela A, Soler Rotllant F, Germà Lluch JR, et al. 2021. Esquemas de pago basados en resultados de medica- mentos: experiencia de 10 años en un centro monográ fico de cáncer. MedClin(Barc). Medicina clínica. In Press. Cole A, Towse A, Lorgelly P, Sullivan R. 2018. Economics of innovative payment models compared with single pricing of pharmaceuticals. OHE Research Paper 2018;18/04. London: Office of Health Economics. Cutler DM, Deaton AS, Lleras-Muney A. 2006. The Determinants of Mortality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, pp. 97–120. DiStefano MJ, Krubiner CB. 2020. Beyond the numbers: a critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1–5. Drake JI, Trujillo de Hart JC, Monleón C, Toro W, Valentim J. 2017. Utilization of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support healthcare decision-making. FIFARMA 2016. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy 5:1, 1360545. Drummond M, Jönsson B, Rutten F. 1997. The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy 40: 199-215. EFPIA. 2021. EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2020 Survey. European Society for Medical Oncology. 2021. ESMO-Magnitud of Clinical Benefit Scale (V1.1). Available at: https://www.esmo.org/content/download/288505/5736229/1/ESMO-MCBSFactsheet.pdf. Flume M, Bardou M, Capri S, Sola-Morales O, Cunningham D, Levin L-A, et al. 2016. Feasibility and attractiveness of indication valuebased pricing in key EU countries. J Mark Access Health Policy 10:4. García-Goñi, M. 2022. Rationalising Pharmaceutical Spending. IMF Working Paper. Forthcoming. Godman, Brian; Hill, Andrew ; Simoens, Steven ; Selke, Gisbert ; Selke Krulichova, Iva ; Zampirolli Dias, Carolina ; Martin, Antony P ; Oortwijn, Wija ; Timoney, Angela ; Gustafsson, Lars L ; Voncina, Luka ; Kwon, Hye-Young ; Gulbinovic, Jolanta ; Gotham, Dzintars ; Wale, Janet ; Da Silva, Wania Cristina ; Bochenek, Tomasz ; Allocati, Eleonora ; Kurdi, Amanj ; Ogunleye, Olayinka O ; Meyer, Johanna C ; Hoxha, Iris ; Malaj, Admir ; Hierlander, Christian ; Sauermann, Robert ; Hamelinck, Wouter ; Petrova, Guenka ; Laius, Ott ; Langner, Irene ; Yfantopoulos, John ; Joppi, Roberta ; Jakupi, Arianit ; Greiciute-Kuprijanov, Ieva ; Vella Bonanno, Patricia ; Piepenbrink, Jf Hans ; de Valk, Vincent ; Wladysiuk, Magdalene ; Markovic-Pekovic, Vanda ; Mardare, Ileana ; Furst, Jurij ; Tomek, Dominik ; Obach Cortadellas, Merce ; Zara, Corinne ; Pontes, Caridad ; McTaggart, Stuart ; Laba, Tracey-Lea ; Melien, Oyvind ; Wong-Rieger, Durhane ; Bae, SeungJin ; Hill, Ruaraidh. 2021. Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications. Expert Review Of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 21(4): 527 – 540. Guarga L, Gasol M, Reyes A, Roig M, Alonso E, Clopés A, Delgadillo J. 2021. Implementing RiskSharing Arrangements for Innovative Medicines: The Experience in Catalonia (Spain). Value in Health. In press. IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Global Oncology Trends 2018. Available at URL: https://www.iqvia.com/ institute/reports/global-oncology-trends-2018. IQVIA. 2019. Global Oncology Trends: innovation, Expansion and Disruption. Available at: https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/global-oncology-trends-2018#reportcharts. Lauenroth VD, Kesselheim AS, Sarpatwari A, et al. 2020. Lessons from the impact of price regulation on the pricing of anticancer drugs in Germany. Health Affairs 39(7):1185–1193. Lawlor R, Wilsdon T, Darquennes E, Hemelsoet D, Huismans J, Normand R, Roediger A. 2021. Accelerating patient access to oncology medicines with multiple indications in Europe. Journal of market access & health policy 9(1): 1964791. Lichtenberg F, Virabhak S. 2007. Pharmaceutical-embodied Technical Progress, Longevity, and Quality of Life: Drugs as Equipment for Your Health. NBER Working Paper No. 9351. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research. Lichtenberg F. 2014, Pharmaceutical Innovation and Longevity Growth in 30 Developing OECD and High-income Countries, 2000–2009. NBER Working Paper No. 18235 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research). Lichtenberg F. 2016. The Benefits of Pharmaceutical Innovation: Health, Longevity, and Savings. Montreal: Montreal Economic Institute. Lichtenberg F. 2019. The Impact of New Drug Launches on Hospitalization in 2015 for 67 Medical Conditions in 15 OECD Countries: A Two-Way Fixed-Effects Analysis. CESifo Working Paper No. 7559. Munich, Germany, Center of Economic and Ifo Institute for Economic Research. Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125-137. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, et al. 2014. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decisión analysis: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 32:345–365. Mauskopf J, Sullivan S, Annemans L, Caro J, Mullins C, Nuijten M, Orlewska E, Watkins J, Trueman P. 2007. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ispor task force on good research practices: budget impact analysis. Value in Health 10: 336–347. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Dellamano R, Pistollato M. Multi-indication pricing: pros, cons and applicability to the UK. In: Office of Health Economics, editor. Seminar Briefing 56; 2015. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Zozaya N, Alcalá B, Hidalgo-Vega A. 2018. Multiindication pricing: nice in theory but can it work in practice? Pharmacoeconomics 36:1407–20. Ministerio de Sanidad. 2021a. Prestación Farmacéutica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud, 2019. Informe monográfico. Informes, Estudios e Investigación. Ministerio de Sanidad. NIPO en línea: 133-21-104-X. Madrid, España. Available at: https://www.sanidad.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/sisInfSanSNS/tablasEstadisticas/InfAnualSNS2019/Informe_PrestacionFarmaceutica_2019.pdf. Ministerio de Sanidad. 2021b. Informe Annual del Sistema Nacional de Salud 2019. Aspectos destacados. Informes, Estudios e Investigación. Ministerio de Sanidad. NIPO: 133-20-031-6. Madrid, España. Available at: https://www.sanidad.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/sisInfSanSNS/tablasEstadisticas/InfAnualSNS2019/Informe_SNS_2019.pdf. Newhouse JP. 1992. Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 6(3): 3–21. NHS England. 2016. Appraisal and Funding of Cancer Drugs from July 2016 (including the new Cancer Drugs Fund). Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/cdfsop.pdf. OECD. 2020. Addressing Challenges in Access to Oncology Medicines -Analytical Report. 2020. Available at URL: https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Addressing-Challenges-inAccess-to-Oncology-Medicines-Analytical-Report.pdf. Orlewska E, Gulacsi L. 2009. Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies. Pharmacoeconomics 27:807–827. Pauwels K, Huys I, Vogler S, et al. 2017. Managed entry agreements for oncology drugs: lessons from the european experience to inform the future. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378787/. Persson U, Norlin JM. 2018. Multi-indication and Combination Pricing and Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals: Opportunities for Improved Health Care through Faster Uptake of New Innovations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 16: 157–165. Plaza F. 2015. Medición de resultados en salud: modelos personalizados de reembolso. Valencia: Congreso Nacional de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria, SEFH. Preckler V, Espín J. 2022. The Role of Indication-Based Pricing in Future Pricing and Reimbursement Policies: A Systematic Review. Value in Health. In Press. Puig-Junoy J. 2018. El análisis de decisión multi-criterio.: ¿Qué es y para qué sirve? Chapter 3 in: El Análisis de Decisión Multi-Criterio en el ámbito sanitario. Utilidad y limitaciones para la toma de decisiones. Ed: Néboa Zozaya González, Juan Oliva Moreno, and Álvaro Hidalgo Vega. Editorial: Fundacion Weber. ISBN: 978-84-947703-6-4. Reyes‑Travé A, Guarga‑Solé L, Roig‑Izquierdo M, Alonso‑Pérez E, Clopés‑Estela A, Delgadillo‑Duarte J. 2021. Characterization of the Pharmaceutical Risk‑Sharing Arrangement Process in Catalonia. PharmacoEconomics 39: 973–982. REvalMed SNS, Comisión Permanente de Farmacia. 2020. Procedimiento normalizado de trabajo de evaluación clínica, evaluación económica y posicionamiento terapéutico para la redacción de informes de posicionamiento terapéutico de medicamentos en el sistema nacional de salud. Available at: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/farmacia/IPT/docs/20200708.PNT_elaboracion_IPT_CPF8Julio.pdf. Scherer FM. 2000. The Pharmaceutical Industry. Handbook of Health Economics, Vol. 1, pp.1297-1336. Simoens S, van Harten W, Lopes G, et al. 2017. What Happens when the Cost of Cancer Care Becomes Unsustainable. Eur Oncol Haematol 13(2):108–113. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Caro J, Lee K, Minchin M, Orlewska E, Penna P, Rodriguez Barrios J, Shau W. 2014. Budget impact analysis- principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value in Health 17:5–14. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, Longrenn T, Mussen F, Peacock S, Watkins J, Ijzerman M. 2016. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 19(1):1-13. Trueman P, Drummond MF, Hutton J. 2001. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 19:609–621. Volksgezondheid MV. 2017. Geslaagde prijsonderhandeling borstkankermiddel pertuzumab en longkankermiddel pembrolizumab. 2017. Waters R, Urquhart L. 2019. EvaluatePharma. World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024. Available at URL https://info.evaluate.com/rs/607-YGS364/images/EvaluatePharma_World_Preview_2019.pdf. Wiggins SN, Maness R. 2004. Price Competition in Pharmaceuticals: The Case of Anti-infectives. Economic Inquiry 42: 247-263. Willemé P, Dumont M. 2016. Machines that Go 'Ping': Medical Technology and Health Expenditures in OECD Countries. Health Econ 24(8):1027-41. Erratum in: Health Econ. 2016 Mar 25(3):387-8. PMID: 25070599.