Payers' views of the changes arising through the possible adoption of adaptive pathways

Payers are a major stakeholder in any considerations and initiatives concerning adaptive licensing of new medicinal products, also referred to as Medicines Adaptive Pathways to patients (MAPPs). Firstly, the scope and necessity of MAPPs need further scrutiny, especially with regard to the definition of unmet need. Conditional approval pathways already exist for new medicines for seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and only a limited number of new medicines are innovative. Secondly, MAPPs will result in new medicines on the market with limited evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Additional data are to be collected after approval. Consequently, adaptive pathways may increase the risk of exposing patients to ineffective or unsafe medicines. We have already seen medicines approved conventionally that subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe amongst a wider, more co-morbid population as well as medicines that could have been considered for approval under MAPPs but subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe in Phase III trials and were never licensed. Thirdly, MAPPs also put high demands on payers. Routine collection of patient level data is difficult with high transaction costs. It is not clear who will fund these. Other challenges for payers include shifts in the risk governance framework, implications for evaluation and HTA, increased complexity of setting prices, difficulty with ensuring equity in the allocation of resources, definition of responsibility and liability and implementation of stratified use. Exit strategies also need to be agreed in advance, including price reductions, rebates, or reimbursement withdrawals when price premiums are not justified. These issues and concerns will be discussed in detail including potential ways forward

Are new models needed to optimize the utilization of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems?

Medicines have made an appreciable contribution to improving health. However, even high-income countries are struggling to fund new premium-priced medicines. This will grow necessitating the development of new models to optimize their use. The objective is to review case histories among health authorities to improve the utilization and expenditure on new medicines. Subsequently, use these to develop exemplar models and outline their implications. A number of issues and challenges were identified from the case histories. These included the low number of new medicines seen as innovative alongside increasing requested prices for their reimbursement, especially for oncology, orphan diseases, diabetes and HCV. Proposed models center on the three pillars of pre-, peri- and post-launch including critical drug evaluation, as well as multi-criteria models for valuing medicines for orphan diseases alongside potentially capping pharmaceutical expenditure. In conclusion, the proposed models involving all key stakeholder groups are critical for the sustainability of healthcare systems or enhancing universal access. The models should help stimulate debate as well as restore trust between key stakeholder groups

Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets

Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growing prevalence of both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimise the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective. Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective. Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability. Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need

Interface management of pharmacotherapy : joint hospital and primary care drug recommendations

Purpose: In September 2012 an interactive course on the "Interface Management of Pharmacotherapy" was organized by the Stockholm Drug and Therapeutics Committee in cooperation with Department of Clinical Pharmacology at Karolinska Institutet and at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, in collaboration with the WHO. The basis for the course was the "Stockholm model" for the rational use of medicines but also contained presentations about successful models in interface management of pharmacotherapy in other European countries. Methods: The "Stockholm model " consists of 8 components: 1) Independent Drug and Therapeutics Committee with key role for respected drug experts with policy for "interest of conflicts", 2) The "Wise List", recommendations of medicines jointly for primary and hospital care, 3) Communication strategy with continuous medical education, 4) Systematic introduction of new expensive medicines, 5) E-pharmacological support at "point of care", 6) Methods and tools for follow-up of medicines use, 7) Medicines policy strategy and 8) Operative resources. Results: The course highlighted the importance of efficient and targeted communication of drug recommendations building on trust among prescribers and patients for the guidelines to achieve high adherence. Trust is achieved by independent Drug and Therapeutics Committees with a key role for respected experts and a strict policy for "conflicts of interest". Representations of GPs are also crucial for successful implementation, being the link between evidence based medicine and practice. Conclusion: The successful models in Scotland and in Stockholm as well as the ongoing work in Catalonia were considered as examples of multifaceted approaches to improve the quality of medicine use across primary and hospital care

Payers' Views of the Changes Arising through the Possible Adoption of Adaptive Pathways

Payers are a major stakeholder in any considerations and initiatives concerning adaptive licensing of new medicinal products, also referred to as Medicines Adaptive Pathways to patients (MAPPs). Firstly, the scope and necessity of MAPPs need further scrutiny, especially with regard to the definition of unmet need. Conditional approval pathways already exist for new medicines for seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and only a limited number of new medicines are innovative. Secondly, MAPPs will result in new medicines on the market with limited evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Additional data are to be collected after approval. Consequently, adaptive pathways may increase the risk of exposing patients to ineffective or unsafe medicines. We have already seen medicines approved conventionally that subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe amongst a wider, more co-morbid population as well as medicines that could have been considered for approval under MAPPs but subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe in Phase III trials and were never licensed. Thirdly, MAPPs also put high demands on payers. Routine collection of patient level data is difficult with high transaction costs. It is not clear who will fund these. Other challenges for payers include shifts in the risk governance framework, implications for evaluation and HTA, increased complexity of setting prices, difficulty with ensuring equity in the allocation of resources, definition of responsibility and liability and implementation of stratified use. Exit strategies also need to be agreed in advance, including price reductions, rebates, or reimbursement withdrawals when price premiums are not justified. These issues and concerns will be discussed in detail including potential ways forward.status: publishe

Adaptive pathways: possible next steps for payers in preparation for their potential implementation

Medicines receiving a conditional marketing authorization through Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) will be a challenge for payers. The “introduction” of MAPPs is already seen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a fait accompli, with payers not consulted or involved. However, once medicines are approved through MAPPs, they will be evaluated for funding by payers through different activities. These include Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with often immature clinical data and high uncertainty, financial considerations, and negotiations through different types of agreements, which can require monitoring post launch. Payers have experience with new medicines approved through conditional approval, and the fact that MAPPs present additional challenges is a concern from their perspective. There may be some activities where payers can collaborate. The final decisions on whether to reimburse a new medicine via MAPPs will have more variation than for medicines licensed via conventional processes. This is due not only to increasing uncertainty associated with medicines authorized through MAPPs but also differences in legal frameworks between member states. Moreover, if the financial and side-effect burden from the period of conditional approval until granting full marketing authorization is shifted to the post-authorization phase, payers may have to bear such burdens. Collection of robust data during routine clinical use is challenging along with high prices for new medicines during data collection. This paper presents the concept of MAPPs and possible challenges. Concerns and potential ways forward are discussed and a number of recommendations are presented from the perspective of payers

Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications

Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer’s perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients