Sharing knowledge for policy action in low- and middle-income countries: A literature review of managed entry agreements

H. Castro, Tanya Malpica-Llanos, R. Musila, N. Konduri, Ana Amaris, Jennifer Sullivan, C. Gilmartin
{"title":"Sharing knowledge for policy action in low- and middle-income countries: A literature review of managed entry agreements","authors":"H. Castro, Tanya Malpica-Llanos, R. Musila, N. Konduri, Ana Amaris, Jennifer Sullivan, C. Gilmartin","doi":"10.1177/2399202619834246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Managed entry agreements (MEAs)—a type of formal institutional arrangement between pharmaceutical companies and payers for sharing the risk with respect to the introduction of new pharmaceutical technologies—may expand access to new pharmaceutical technologies for non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Although common in highincome countries (HICs), there is limited evidence of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This article aims to document international experiences of countries implementing MEAs and potential barriers and facilitators for their use in LMICs. We reviewed published literature sources on MEAs over the past 10 years considering peer-reviewed publications and gray literature data. We took into consideration the MEAs taxonomy presented by Kanavos and Ferrario et al. to categorize our findings, and extract information on factors for their implementation. We retrieved 285 MEAs documented in the literature, mostly from HICs and for a broad spectrum of NCDs. Financial schemes were slightly more prominent than performance-based agreements. Identified factors that could potentially facilitate or hinder the implementation of MEAs included the presence of quality administrative and information systems to track their implementation; availability of quality data and evidence of positive outcomes; uncertainty of drug efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and financial impact; and cultural factors, namely country’s preference for certain type of agreement and trust among payers and manufacturers. The increased availability of publications in recent years suggests a growing interest among policy-makers and researchers in the implementation of MEAs. While the use of MEAs in LMICs is very limited, this could be the result of limited empirical evidence on its use and possibly due to the use of a different taxonomy for describing MEAs in these settings. As any other policy option, the implementation and use of MEAs come with advantages and challenges. Since there is limited evidence on their use in LMICs, the identified cases of implementation in HICs may serve to inform the interest on MEAs in resource limited settings. Therefore, further research in this field especially in the context of LMICs may be of value for the global community as all countries are embarking into fairer and sustainable Universal Health Coverage (UHC).","PeriodicalId":74158,"journal":{"name":"Medicine access @ point of care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2399202619834246","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine access @ point of care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2399202619834246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Managed entry agreements (MEAs)—a type of formal institutional arrangement between pharmaceutical companies and payers for sharing the risk with respect to the introduction of new pharmaceutical technologies—may expand access to new pharmaceutical technologies for non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Although common in highincome countries (HICs), there is limited evidence of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This article aims to document international experiences of countries implementing MEAs and potential barriers and facilitators for their use in LMICs. We reviewed published literature sources on MEAs over the past 10 years considering peer-reviewed publications and gray literature data. We took into consideration the MEAs taxonomy presented by Kanavos and Ferrario et al. to categorize our findings, and extract information on factors for their implementation. We retrieved 285 MEAs documented in the literature, mostly from HICs and for a broad spectrum of NCDs. Financial schemes were slightly more prominent than performance-based agreements. Identified factors that could potentially facilitate or hinder the implementation of MEAs included the presence of quality administrative and information systems to track their implementation; availability of quality data and evidence of positive outcomes; uncertainty of drug efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and financial impact; and cultural factors, namely country’s preference for certain type of agreement and trust among payers and manufacturers. The increased availability of publications in recent years suggests a growing interest among policy-makers and researchers in the implementation of MEAs. While the use of MEAs in LMICs is very limited, this could be the result of limited empirical evidence on its use and possibly due to the use of a different taxonomy for describing MEAs in these settings. As any other policy option, the implementation and use of MEAs come with advantages and challenges. Since there is limited evidence on their use in LMICs, the identified cases of implementation in HICs may serve to inform the interest on MEAs in resource limited settings. Therefore, further research in this field especially in the context of LMICs may be of value for the global community as all countries are embarking into fairer and sustainable Universal Health Coverage (UHC).
分享知识促进低收入和中等收入国家的政策行动:关于管理准入协议的文献综述
管理进入协议(MEA)是制药公司和支付方之间的一种正式制度安排,用于分担引入新制药技术的风险,可能会扩大非传染性疾病(NCDs)新制药技术。尽管在高收入国家很常见,但在中低收入国家使用的证据有限。本文旨在记录实施多边环境协定的国家的国际经验,以及在LMIC中使用这些协定的潜在障碍和促进者。考虑到同行评审的出版物和灰色文献数据,我们回顾了过去10年中关于MEA的已发表文献来源。我们考虑了Kanavos和Ferrario等人提出的MEA分类法。对我们的发现进行分类,并提取有关实施这些发现的因素的信息。我们检索了文献中记录的285种MEA,主要来自HIC和广泛的非传染性疾病。金融计划比基于绩效的协议略为突出。已查明的可能有助于或阻碍多边环境协定执行的因素包括:是否存在跟踪其执行情况的高质量行政和信息系统;提供高质量的数据和积极成果的证据;药物疗效/有效性、安全性和财务影响的不确定性;以及文化因素,即国家对某种类型的协议的偏好以及付款人和制造商之间的信任。近年来出版物的增加表明,决策者和研究人员对多边环境协定的实施越来越感兴趣。虽然多边环境协定在LMIC中的使用非常有限,但这可能是关于其使用的经验证据有限的结果,也可能是由于在这些环境中使用了不同的分类法来描述多边环境协定。与任何其他政策选择一样,多边环境协定的实施和使用也带来了优势和挑战。由于关于其在低成本环境中的使用的证据有限,已确定的在高成本环境中实施的案例可能有助于告知在资源有限的环境中对多边环境协定的兴趣。因此,随着所有国家都开始实现更公平和可持续的全民健康覆盖(UHC),该领域的进一步研究,特别是在LMIC的背景下,可能对全球社会具有价值。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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