{"title":"Perceptions of risk sharing agreements in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders: a convergent parallel mixed approach.","authors":"Tae-Jin Lee, Kyung-Bok Son","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2410250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In 2013, South Korea introduced risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) as a new reimbursement mechanism to enhance access to new medicines and to manage pharmaceutical expenditures. This study evaluates RSAs in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2022, a survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted. Study participants were recruited from academia (<i>n</i> = 3), domestic (<i>n</i> = 4) and foreign (<i>n</i> = 6) manufacturers, and government agencies (<i>n</i> = 6) using a purposive sampling method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key stakeholders perceived the objective of RSAs to be 'access to medicines' and understood RSAs to manage uncertainty about 'expenditures.' They responded that financial- and performance-based RSAs address uncertainty about 'expenditures' and 'clinical effectiveness,' respectively. All stakeholders agreed that RSAs have increased the likelihood that new medicines will be listed and have reduced out-of-pocket expenditures for patients. However, foreign manufacturers insisted that the benefits of RSAs are marginal, while the administrative burden on manufacturers is high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The gaps in perception between stakeholders could be narrowed by conducting a comprehensive evaluation. Financial- and performance-based RSAs need to be clearly distinguished and aligned to address the uncertainties of a new medicine in health systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2410250","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: In 2013, South Korea introduced risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) as a new reimbursement mechanism to enhance access to new medicines and to manage pharmaceutical expenditures. This study evaluates RSAs in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders.
Methods: In 2022, a survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted. Study participants were recruited from academia (n = 3), domestic (n = 4) and foreign (n = 6) manufacturers, and government agencies (n = 6) using a purposive sampling method.
Results: Key stakeholders perceived the objective of RSAs to be 'access to medicines' and understood RSAs to manage uncertainty about 'expenditures.' They responded that financial- and performance-based RSAs address uncertainty about 'expenditures' and 'clinical effectiveness,' respectively. All stakeholders agreed that RSAs have increased the likelihood that new medicines will be listed and have reduced out-of-pocket expenditures for patients. However, foreign manufacturers insisted that the benefits of RSAs are marginal, while the administrative burden on manufacturers is high.
Conclusion: The gaps in perception between stakeholders could be narrowed by conducting a comprehensive evaluation. Financial- and performance-based RSAs need to be clearly distinguished and aligned to address the uncertainties of a new medicine in health systems.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.