Cargando…

Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries

BACKGROUND: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) continue to emerge in health technology assessment (HTA)-based decision-making, to address evidentiary uncertainties arising therein. Evidence on the HTA criteria that influence MEAs' uptake remains scarce. This study explores the HTA criteria that de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Efthymiadou, Olina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10406668/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36219363
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01526-x
_version_ 1785085794540584960
author Efthymiadou, Olina
author_facet Efthymiadou, Olina
author_sort Efthymiadou, Olina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) continue to emerge in health technology assessment (HTA)-based decision-making, to address evidentiary uncertainties arising therein. Evidence on the HTA criteria that influence MEAs' uptake remains scarce. This study explores the HTA criteria that determine (i) if an HTA funding decision will be listed with conditions (LWC) other than a MEA, or with a MEA as a condition (LWCMEA), and ii) the MEA type implemented (i.e., financial, outcomes based, or combination). METHODS: HTA reports of all oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were searched to capture the clinical/economic evidence uncertainties raised in the decision-making process, the Social Value Judgements (SVJs) considered therein and the final coverage decision. Binary and multinomial logit models captured the probability (odds ratio (OR)) of a coverage decision being LWCMEA vs. LWC, and of the MEA being financial, outcomes based, or combination, based on the HTA criteria studied. RESULTS: 23 (12%) LWC and 163 (88%) LWCMEA decisions were identified; 136 (83.4%) comprised financial, 10 (6.2%) outcomes based and 17 (10.4%) combination MEAs. LWCMEA decisions were driven by economic model utilities' uncertainties (7.16 < OR < 26.7, p < .05), and the innovation (8.5 < OR < 11.7, p < .05) SVJ. Outcomes based contracts were influenced by clinical evidence (OR = 69.2, p < .05) and relevance to clinical practice (OR = 26.4, p < .05) uncertainties, and rarity (OR = 46.2, p < .05) and severity (OR = 23.3, p < .05) SVJs. Financial MEAs were influenced by innovation (8.9 < OR < 9.3, p < .05) and societal impact (OR = 17.7, p < .0001) SVJs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an empirical framework on the HTA criteria that shape payers' preferences in funding with MEAs, when faced with uncertainty. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10198-022-01526-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10406668
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104066682023-08-09 Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries Efthymiadou, Olina Eur J Health Econ Original Paper BACKGROUND: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) continue to emerge in health technology assessment (HTA)-based decision-making, to address evidentiary uncertainties arising therein. Evidence on the HTA criteria that influence MEAs' uptake remains scarce. This study explores the HTA criteria that determine (i) if an HTA funding decision will be listed with conditions (LWC) other than a MEA, or with a MEA as a condition (LWCMEA), and ii) the MEA type implemented (i.e., financial, outcomes based, or combination). METHODS: HTA reports of all oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were searched to capture the clinical/economic evidence uncertainties raised in the decision-making process, the Social Value Judgements (SVJs) considered therein and the final coverage decision. Binary and multinomial logit models captured the probability (odds ratio (OR)) of a coverage decision being LWCMEA vs. LWC, and of the MEA being financial, outcomes based, or combination, based on the HTA criteria studied. RESULTS: 23 (12%) LWC and 163 (88%) LWCMEA decisions were identified; 136 (83.4%) comprised financial, 10 (6.2%) outcomes based and 17 (10.4%) combination MEAs. LWCMEA decisions were driven by economic model utilities' uncertainties (7.16 < OR < 26.7, p < .05), and the innovation (8.5 < OR < 11.7, p < .05) SVJ. Outcomes based contracts were influenced by clinical evidence (OR = 69.2, p < .05) and relevance to clinical practice (OR = 26.4, p < .05) uncertainties, and rarity (OR = 46.2, p < .05) and severity (OR = 23.3, p < .05) SVJs. Financial MEAs were influenced by innovation (8.9 < OR < 9.3, p < .05) and societal impact (OR = 17.7, p < .0001) SVJs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an empirical framework on the HTA criteria that shape payers' preferences in funding with MEAs, when faced with uncertainty. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10198-022-01526-x. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-10-11 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10406668/ /pubmed/36219363 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01526-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Paper
Efthymiadou, Olina
Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries
title Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries
title_full Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries
title_fullStr Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries
title_full_unstemmed Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries
title_short Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries
title_sort health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10406668/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36219363
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01526-x
work_keys_str_mv AT efthymiadouolina healthtechnologyassessmentcriteriaasdriversofcoveragewithmanagedentryagreementsacasestudyofcancermedicinesinfourcountries