关键定价、报销和市场准入(PRMA)流程中的人工智能:更好、更快、更便宜——你真的能从中选择两样吗?

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-17 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2025.2488154
Eva Susanne Dietrich
{"title":"关键定价、报销和市场准入(PRMA)流程中的人工智能:更好、更快、更便宜——你真的能从中选择两样吗?","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":"586-595"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"586-595\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"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\":\"2025/4/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2025/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大型语言模型(llm)和机器学习(ML)的快速发展为市场准入过程带来了重大机遇和挑战。这些复杂的人工智能系统建立在变压器架构和广泛的数据集之上,具有预测卫生技术评估(HTA)机构的索赔和决策以及简化系统文献审查和HTA提交等流程的潜力。此外,对真实世界数据的分析——也用于推导因果关系——正在得到深入讨论。尽管取得了显著进展,但目前在关键的PRMA流程中采用人工智能的情况仍然有限,只有一小部分提交给HTA机构的文件包含人工智能。主要障碍包括严格的透明度要求、数据分析中的可解释性和人为监督的必要性,以及文本起草的高度敏感性——特别是在报销决定或定价谈判处于危急关头的情况下。由于许多人工智能应用的不成熟,仍然缺乏必要的精度、可靠性和上下文理解,这些要求往往无法满足。此外,人工智能生成的证据尚未证明其有效性,才能补充或取代传统的研究设计,如随机对照试验(rct),这对HTA的决策至关重要。此外,培训法学硕士的环境和财务成本需要仔细评估。本文从德国的角度探讨了当前人工智能在关键PRMA流程中的各种应用、局限性和未来前景,同时也考虑了欧盟卫生技术评估法规(HTAR)的更广泛影响。报告的结论是,尽管人工智能具有变革潜力,但必须谨慎地将其整合到工作流程中,逐步采用,并在行业、HTA机构和学术界之间密切合作。展示有力的、公正的比较证据——展示优于传统方法的性能和成本节约——可以加速采用过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence in key pricing, reimbursement, and market access (PRMA) processes: better, faster, cheaper-can you really pick two?

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信