The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe : Findings and Implications

Funding Information: In Bosnia and Herzegovina, both The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, also have special funds and budgets in place for the financing of expensive medicines, which are innovative and under patent. Similar earmarked funds are available in Scotland (the New Medicines Fund funded by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme [PPRS] rebates) [35] and England (the Cancer Drugs Fund) [36]. However, support for such earmarked funds is mixed. While they facilitate access, critics raised issues about fairness towards other disease areas and patient groups that are not eligible for special funding [3, 39]. Further, the views of a Patient and Clinician Engagement meeting in Scotland [37] and the end-of-life criteria in England [38] offer opportunities for special considerations affecting medicines for end-of-life and very rare conditions to be taken into account in the health technology assessment process. Funding Information: The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Jan Jones from the Scottish Medicines Consortium, Scotland, for contributing to the discussion with information on Scotland, Drs. Lyudmila Bezmelnitsyna and Anastasia Isaeva for contributing to data collection in Russia and Dr. Kate?ina Podrazilov? from SZP ?R for providing information on the Czech Republic. Alessandra Ferrario was a Research Officer at the LSE Health at the time this research was conducted. She is now a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, USA. Email: [email protected] No sources of funding were used for this study. The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest. However, Di?na Ar?ja, Maria Dimitrova, Jurij F?rst, Ieva Grei?i?t?-Kuprijanov, Iris Hoxha, Arianit Jakupi, Erki Laidm?e, Vanda Markovic-Pekovic, Dmitry Meshkov, Guenka Petrova, Maciej Pomorski and Patricia Vella Bonanno work directly for national health authorities or are advisers to them. Alessandra Ferrario, Tomasz Bochenek, Ileana Mardare, Dominik Tomek, Luka Voncina, Alan Haycox, Panos Kanavos,?Olga L?blov?, and Brian Godman are academics and independent researchers also working with national and regional health authorities and others to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing, and Tarik Catic, D?vid Dank?,and Tanja Novakovic are involved with pharmaceutical, pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research groups in their countries. Olga L?blov? has also carried out remunerated consultancy activities for A&R Partners, Baxter AG and Instytut Arcana and Ileana Mardare has signed a consulting contract with Ewopharma A.G. Romania. The content of the paper and the conclusions are those of each author and may not necessarily reflect those of any organisation that employs them. Publisher Copyright: © 2017, The Author(s).Background: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. Method: We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Results: Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Conclusions: Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Identifying Patient Access Barriers for Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Treatments in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Five Central Eastern European Countries

Introduction: Although there is a significant utilization gap of biologic medicines in the EU, many studies estimate equity in patient access to biopharmaceuticals only based on their availability on the national list of reimbursed medicines. Hidden access barriers may facilitate financial sustainability of pharmaceuticals in less affluent EU countries; however, they have rarely been documented in scientific publications. Our objective was to explore these access barriers for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in five Central and Eastern European countries. Methods: A detailed interview guide was developed based on multi-stakeholder workshops and a targeted literature review. In each participant country 3-3-3-3 interviews with payers, rheumatologists, patients/patient representatives, and industry representatives were conducted. Responses were aggregated at a country level and validated by primary investigators in each country. Results: Limited number of RA centers and consequently significant travelling time and cost for patients in distant geographical areas, uneven budget allocation among centers, limited capacity of nurses, narrowed patient population in national financial protocols compared to international clinical guidelines in initiating or continuing biologics, high administrative burden in prescribing biologics and limited health literacy of patients were the most relevant barriers to timely patient access in at least three participant countries. Conclusion: Assessing only the availability of TNF alpha inhibitors on the national list of reimbursed medicines provides limited information about real-world patient access to these medicines. Revealing hidden access barriers may contribute to initiate policy actions which could reduce inequity in patient access

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

Fixed dose drug combinations - are they pharmacoeconomically sound? Findings and implications especially for lower- and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION : There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and noninfectious diseases and issues of affordability. AREAS COVERED : Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness, and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where there are concerns with their value. EXPERT COMMENTARY : FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates, and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis, and hypertension are valued and listed in the country’s essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which are being addressed.https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ierp20hj2020School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Fixed dose drug combinations - are they pharmacoeconomically sound? Findings and implications especially for lower- and middle-income countries

Introduction: There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower and middle income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and non-infectious diseases and issues of affordability. Areas covered: Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where concerns with their value. Expert commentary: FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis and hypertension are valued and listed in country’s essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which is being addressed