Pharmaceutical pricing and managed entry agreements: An exploratory study on future perspectives in Europe

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Claudio Jommi , Arianna Bertolani , Patrizio Armeni , Francesco Costa , Monica Otto
{"title":"Pharmaceutical pricing and managed entry agreements: An exploratory study on future perspectives in Europe","authors":"Claudio Jommi ,&nbsp;Arianna Bertolani ,&nbsp;Patrizio Armeni ,&nbsp;Francesco Costa ,&nbsp;Monica Otto","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This paper illustrates the results of a research aimed at investigating the opinions collected from selected European payers (HTA organisations, authorities/committees assessing, appraising and negotiating drug prices) and experts (researchers/consultants identified through LinkedIn groups) on drug price regulation, managed entry agreements, transparency and HTA advice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Expert and payer opinions were gathered through a structured questionnaire, validated by three potential respondents and self-administered online between July and November 2021.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Respondents totalled 39 (response rate 29%). The response rate was higher among the experts than the payers. Respondents mostly agreed that price regulation should award drug value through a multiple criteria approach (21 respondents) or cost-effectiveness evidence (14). For most respondents the added therapeutic value and the comparative safety profile should be the main drivers of a premium price. A quite high proportion of respondents supported the use of cost-effectiveness, and suggest relying on the perspective of the health care system. Most respondents expect larger diffusion of outcome-based and financial-based managed entry agreements in the future. Finally, respondents advocated for higher transparency of the negotiation process rather than net price transparency, and expressed the belief that HTA advice could be useful in reaching consensus on the level of unmet need, the comparators to consider, and the dimension of the target population.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite the limited number of respondents, the paper provides very interesting exploratory insights into much-debated topics related to drug price regulation. The opinions of European payers and experts are very useful for future regulation of drug pricing in Europe.</p></div><div><h3>Public interest summary</h3><p>Our research aimed at gathering the opinions of payers and experts on drug price regulation. The main findings are that pricing should reflect the value of medicines, that a premium price should be awarded only to those drugs that provide for an added therapeutic value and/o a better safety profile, even if other value dimensions (patient preferences and organisational impact) should be not disregarded. Experts and payers expect a larger role of managed entry agreements in the future, despite they may impose an important administrative burden. Finally, transparency of price negotiation is prioritized compared to net price transparency.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883723000473","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This paper illustrates the results of a research aimed at investigating the opinions collected from selected European payers (HTA organisations, authorities/committees assessing, appraising and negotiating drug prices) and experts (researchers/consultants identified through LinkedIn groups) on drug price regulation, managed entry agreements, transparency and HTA advice.

Methods

Expert and payer opinions were gathered through a structured questionnaire, validated by three potential respondents and self-administered online between July and November 2021.

Results

Respondents totalled 39 (response rate 29%). The response rate was higher among the experts than the payers. Respondents mostly agreed that price regulation should award drug value through a multiple criteria approach (21 respondents) or cost-effectiveness evidence (14). For most respondents the added therapeutic value and the comparative safety profile should be the main drivers of a premium price. A quite high proportion of respondents supported the use of cost-effectiveness, and suggest relying on the perspective of the health care system. Most respondents expect larger diffusion of outcome-based and financial-based managed entry agreements in the future. Finally, respondents advocated for higher transparency of the negotiation process rather than net price transparency, and expressed the belief that HTA advice could be useful in reaching consensus on the level of unmet need, the comparators to consider, and the dimension of the target population.

Conclusions

Despite the limited number of respondents, the paper provides very interesting exploratory insights into much-debated topics related to drug price regulation. The opinions of European payers and experts are very useful for future regulation of drug pricing in Europe.

Public interest summary

Our research aimed at gathering the opinions of payers and experts on drug price regulation. The main findings are that pricing should reflect the value of medicines, that a premium price should be awarded only to those drugs that provide for an added therapeutic value and/o a better safety profile, even if other value dimensions (patient preferences and organisational impact) should be not disregarded. Experts and payers expect a larger role of managed entry agreements in the future, despite they may impose an important administrative burden. Finally, transparency of price negotiation is prioritized compared to net price transparency.

药品定价和管理进入协议:对欧洲未来前景的探索性研究
目的本论文阐述了一项研究的结果,该研究旨在调查从选定的欧洲支付方(药品价格评估、评估和谈判机构/委员会)和专家(通过领英集团确定的研究人员/顾问)那里收集的关于药品价格监管、管理进入协议、透明度和药品价格评估建议的意见。方法通过结构化问卷收集专家和付款人的意见,由三名潜在受访者验证,并在2021年7月至11月期间在线自我管理。结果受访者共39人(回答率29%)。专家的回复率高于支付者。受访者大多同意价格监管应通过多标准方法(21名受访者)或成本效益证据(14)来奖励药物价值。对于大多数受访者来说,附加的治疗价值和相对的安全性应该是溢价的主要驱动因素。相当高比例的受访者支持使用成本效益,并建议从医疗保健系统的角度出发。大多数受访者预计,未来会有更多基于成果和基于财务的有管理的进入协议。最后,答复者主张提高谈判过程的透明度,而不是净价格的透明度,并表示相信HTA的建议有助于就未满足的需求水平、需要考虑的比较标准和目标人群的规模达成共识。结论尽管受访者数量有限,但本文对与药品价格监管相关的备受争议的话题提供了非常有趣的探索性见解。欧洲付款人和专家的意见对欧洲未来药品价格监管非常有用。公共利益综述我们的研究旨在收集付款人和专家对药品价格监管的意见。主要发现是,定价应反映药物的价值,溢价应仅授予那些提供额外治疗价值和/或更好安全性的药物,即使不应忽视其他价值维度(患者偏好和组织影响)。专家和支付方预计,尽管有管理的进入协议可能会带来重要的行政负担,但它们在未来将发挥更大的作用。最后,与净价格透明度相比,价格谈判的透明度被优先考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Policy and Technology
Health Policy and Technology Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
88 days
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments. HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology. Topics covered by HPT will include: - Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems - Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches - National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives - Cross-border eHealth including health tourism - The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare - Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies - Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies - Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making - Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in) - Regulation and health economics
×
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