Artificial Intelligence in key pricing, reimbursement and market access (PRMA) processes: better, faster, cheaper - can you really pick two?

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eva Susanne Dietrich
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence in key pricing, reimbursement and market access (PRMA) processes: better, faster, cheaper - can you really pick two?","authors":"Eva Susanne Dietrich","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2025.2488154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) and machine learning (ML) presents both significant opportunities and challenges for market access processes. These sophisticated AI systems, built on transformer architectures and extensive datasets, offer potential to forecast claims and decisions of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and streamline processes such as systematic literature reviews and HTA submissions. Furthermore, the analysis of real-world data - also for deriving causal relationships - is being discussed intensively. Despite notable advancements, their adoption in key PRMA processes is still limited at present, with only a small fraction of submissions to HTA bodies incorporating AI. Key barriers include stringent transparency requirements, the necessity of explainability and human oversight in data analyses, and the highly sensitive nature of text drafting - especially in cases where reimbursement decisions or pricing negotiations balance on a knife's edge. These requirements are often not met due to the immaturity of many AI applications, which still lack the necessary precision, reliability, and contextual understanding. Moreover, AI-generated evidence has yet to prove its validity before it can supplement or replace traditional study designs, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are critical for HTA decisions. Additionally, the environmental and financial costs of training LLMs require careful assessment. This paper explores various current AI applications, their limitations, and future prospects in key PRMA processes from a German perspective while also considering the broader implications of the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation (HTAR). It concludes that while AI hold transformative potential, its integration into workflows must be approached cautiously, with incremental adoption, and close collaboration between industry, HTA agencies, and academia. Demonstrating robust, unbiased comparative evidence-showcasing superior performance and cost savings over traditional methods-could accelerate the adoption process.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2488154","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) and machine learning (ML) presents both significant opportunities and challenges for market access processes. These sophisticated AI systems, built on transformer architectures and extensive datasets, offer potential to forecast claims and decisions of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and streamline processes such as systematic literature reviews and HTA submissions. Furthermore, the analysis of real-world data - also for deriving causal relationships - is being discussed intensively. Despite notable advancements, their adoption in key PRMA processes is still limited at present, with only a small fraction of submissions to HTA bodies incorporating AI. Key barriers include stringent transparency requirements, the necessity of explainability and human oversight in data analyses, and the highly sensitive nature of text drafting - especially in cases where reimbursement decisions or pricing negotiations balance on a knife's edge. These requirements are often not met due to the immaturity of many AI applications, which still lack the necessary precision, reliability, and contextual understanding. Moreover, AI-generated evidence has yet to prove its validity before it can supplement or replace traditional study designs, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are critical for HTA decisions. Additionally, the environmental and financial costs of training LLMs require careful assessment. This paper explores various current AI applications, their limitations, and future prospects in key PRMA processes from a German perspective while also considering the broader implications of the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation (HTAR). It concludes that while AI hold transformative potential, its integration into workflows must be approached cautiously, with incremental adoption, and close collaboration between industry, HTA agencies, and academia. Demonstrating robust, unbiased comparative evidence-showcasing superior performance and cost savings over traditional methods-could accelerate the adoption process.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信