XML Template (2014) [5.11.2014–6:27pm] //blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/JRSJ/Vol00000/140132/APPFile/SG-JRSJ140132.3d

(JRS)

[1–5] [PREPRINTER stage]

J R Soc Med OnlineFirst, published on December 8, 2014 as doi:10.1177/0141076814559626

Essay Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 0(0) 1–5 DOI: 10.1177/0141076814559626

Market-access agreements for anti-cancer drugs Katelijne van de Vooren1, Alessandro Curto1, Nick Freemantle2 and Livio Garattini1 1

IRCCS Institute for Pharmacological Research ‘Mario Negri’, Ranica, 24020, Italy UCL Medical School (Royal Free Campus), Royal Free Medical School, London, NW3 2PF, UK Corresponding author: Livio Garattini. Email: [email protected] 2

Introduction Newly marketed pharmaceuticals command increasingly high prices, particularly in oncology where single treatment cycles can be very costly, even though data at market approval are usually inadequate to describe thoroughly their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.1 Both manufacturers and payers have shown interest in solutions to achieve rapid access for patients – known as ‘market-access agreements’. Although the literature offers a variety of definitions,2–5 these agreements can be roughly grouped under two main types:6 financial-based and performance-based. Financial-based schemes focus on the budget impact of a new drug and usually consist of price/dose discounts. Performancebased schemes involve collecting clinical evidence once a new drug has been marketed in a healthcare system and lead to payment only for patients responding to therapy, an objective which is methodologically and practically challenging while not without political appeal. The underlying strategy is to help reduce the likelihood of payers adopting technologies that turn out not to be cost-effective, while at the same time helping manufacturers increase market access time and take profit.7 Market-access agreements can also be considered an opportunistic way for manufacturers to keep official prices high such as maintaining a common European price,6 while granting health authorities confidential rebates, thus preventing parallel trade and undermining effective external reference pricing. The English and Italian health services have been the first countries to introduce market-access agreements on specific drugs. These contracts are now called Managed Entry Agreements (MEA) in Italy and Patient Access Schemes (PAS) in England and Wales. We focus on the area of oncology, where many new drugs are costly and fall under these arrangements.8

Italy Framework AIFA, the Italian medicines agency, signed its first contract in July 2006,9 and now 44 are in force for 33 drugs,10 37 of them in oncology. AIFA can stipulate three different types of agreement with pharmaceutical companies during price and reimbursement negotiations for new drugs or indications. ‘Costsharing’ contracts involve a price discount, usually limited to the first month or cycles of therapy; these discounts are normally monetary and manufacturers are expected to make a rebate payment. The other two contracts are performance-based: for each nonresponding patient, the manufacturer is expected to rebate the full price for ‘payment-by-result’ or part of it for ‘risk-sharing’ contracts. If a patient meets ‘nonresponder’ criteria, the hospital pharmacist has to apply to the manufacturer for pay-back not later than the end of the year; then the manufacturer can accept or reject the request (requiring arbitration). The complex management of these schemes is entirely based on web registries owned by AIFA.11 Hospital consultants are required to complete online prescription forms, with the patient’s identification data, therapeutic indication and dosages. In addition to the prescription, the registry requires the treating physician to record follow-up clinical data and outcomes.The system validates each prescription and automatically requests the hospital pharmacy to release the drug.

Assessment In September 2013, AIFA published the revenues of MEAs for the first time.12 The total expected payback was E46.3 million in 2012. However, one-third was subject to disputes with pharmaceutical companies (22%) or late requests by hospitals (11%). E31.3 million were eventually collected, around 5% of the

! The Royal Society of Medicine 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from jrs.sagepub.com by guest on August 20, 2015

XML Template (2014) [5.11.2014–6:27pm] //blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/JRSJ/Vol00000/140132/APPFile/SG-JRSJ140132.3d

(JRS)

[1–5] [PREPRINTER stage]

2

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 0(0)

total expenditure for the indications of the drugs under MEA.7 Management costs for MEAs are also substantial. In May 2012, AIFA awarded a three-year tender for E8.7 million to a leading private international consulting company to manage the registries. In practice, this led to an interruption in service at the end of 2012, because of incompatibility between the old and the new information technology systems, which continued in 2013 and may undermine most of the rebate for that year. Furthermore, AIFA reports on its website that around E1 million should be added to the total direct cost.7 Finally, the NHS hospital consultants’ and pharmacists’ time for completing the forms also represents a cost. AIFA has published on its website a very precise estimate of the time required by health professionals to complete the most important forms. However, the negligible average times suggested (less than 1 min) do not appear to be realistic.13 Despite AIFA expectations for the MEAs’ contribution to the clinical evidence base, no published report has yet included data on drugs subject to performance-based agreements. Going through the forms referring to the patients’ clinical status,10 it is clear that they closely reflect the approval indication, requiring very little additional information and thus not useful for an extended clinical assessment.7

England and Wales Framework The English Department of Health (DH) agreed its first PAS with a pharmaceutical company in October 2007. Currently, the NHS has signed 42 contracts covering 32 drugs,14 almost half of them (19) anticancer therapies. The 2009 Pharmaceutical Pricing Regulation Scheme (PPRS) – the voluntary agreement negotiated periodically between the DH and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) – was the first to recognise PAS as a scheme to be used exceptionally for improving the cost-effectiveness of innovative drugs and making their cumulative burden on the NHS manageable.15 A pharmaceutical company can propose any kind of PAS to the DH, which will take a decision with input from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the public agency that assesses new health technologies on behalf of the NHS. The NICE’s Patient Access Scheme Liaison Unit (PASLU) advises the DH whether the proposed PAS is feasible within the NHS in England and Wales. Manufacturers can decide to propose a PAS after

market approval or submit it as a response to a negative draft/final guidance by NICE. Only one type of performance-based contract exists, the ‘response scheme’ (pay-back on drug costs based on response to treatment measured by a test), while five different options are in force for financial-based contracts:14 (i) ‘simple discount’ (discounted official price of the drug), (ii) ‘free stock’ (first cycles/weeks provided free of charge or higher dosages provided for the same price as lower dosages), (iii) ‘dose cap’ (drug provided free of charge after a specific treatment period), (iv) ‘rebate’ (rebate of a proportion of the per-patient drug dose), (v) ‘single fixed price’ (lump sum irrespective of the duration of treatment). Hospital pharmacies usually manage PASs without any specific financial support from the DH, tracking each patient’s cycles or clinician’s responses and then computing the rebated price paid by the NHS. The procedures have to be completed within deadlines that may vary substantially between contracts.

Assessment PAS are commercial-in-confidence contracts whose financial results are not made public, so unfortunately there is little official information.16 We found only two small, not very recent surveys involving hospital pharmacists that tried to assess the NHS administrative burden of PAS in England and Wales.17,18 Both studies concluded that, in order to prevent missed claims, the NHS did not have the capacity to manage more PAS without funding staff time to manage, co-ordinate and track the contracts. In general, schemes linked to measurement of a clinical response took longer to administer than the pure financial ones (e.g. 45 min per patient for cetuximab and 38 min for bortezomib vs. 18 min for erlotinib and 19 min for sunitinib)17 and tended to raise more problems. Although hospital pharmacists did not indicate any specific preferred scheme, simpler contracts with fewer requirements for data collection and monitoring were recommended, possibly based on easy financial discounts.18 Although the 2014 renegotiated PPRS19 has confirmed that PAS should be the exception rather than the rule, almost one-quarter of all positive guidance issued by NICE included a PAS.

Comparative analysis Table 1 summarises the number and types of MEAs and PASs on anti-cancer drugs retrievable from the websites of AIFA10 and NICE14 and approved up to June 2014. Figure 1 shows the trend over time by type

Downloaded from jrs.sagepub.com by guest on August 20, 2015

XML Template (2014) [5.11.2014–6:27pm] //blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/JRSJ/Vol00000/140132/APPFile/SG-JRSJ140132.3d

(JRS)

[1–5] [PREPRINTER stage]

van de Vooren et al.

3

of MEA and PAS in oncology. All PASs introduced in England and Wales after October 2011 have been based on simple discounts. In Italy, even though the financial-based MEAs have proved easier to manage and more efficient than performance-based ones in producing revenues,7 the latter have by far overtaken the former in the last few years. Table 2 shows the 12

Table 1. Number and types of existing schemes in oncology. Financial-based schemes

Outcome-based schemes

MEA

3 Cost-sharing (13)

3 Risk-sharing (2) 3 Payment-byresult (22)

PAS

3 3 3 3 3

3 Response scheme (1)

Simple discount (12) Free stock (2) Dose cap (2) Rebate (1) Single fixed price (1)

MEA: Managed Entry Agreement; PAS: Patient Access Scheme.

anti-cancer drugs (and their 13 therapeutic indications) under MEA and PAS in the two countries. Only four (azacitidine, erlotinib, nilotinib and sunitinib) come under a common type of scheme (financialbased); the only drug under a performance-based PAS in England and Wales (bortezomib) is managed by a simple financial-based MEA in Italy. Both countries have gained experience with market-access agreements but their practical application has radically diverged over time. AIFA started mainly with financial-based contracts and then shifted to performance-based schemes, while the DH agreed only financial-based schemes in the last few years. The English NHS appears to have opted for cost-minimisation of their management, the simplicity of the schemes prevailing over the possible additional clinical information that might be collected by PASs. The Italian NHS, however, has insisted in investing on performance-based MEAs despite the lack of clinical added value so far. The major, common concern around these schemes in the two countries is their burdensome administration, mainly borne by the local health professionals involved in compiling patient data and

Figure 1. Trends of MEAs and PASs in oncology by type (up to June 2014).

Downloaded from jrs.sagepub.com by guest on August 20, 2015

XML Template (2014) [5.11.2014–6:27pm] //blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/JRSJ/Vol00000/140132/APPFile/SG-JRSJ140132.3d

(JRS)

[1–5] [PREPRINTER stage]

4

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 0(0)

Table 2. Anti-cancer drugs under MEA and PAS. Drug

Therapeutic indication

England and Wales

Italy

Abiraterone

Metastatic prostate cancer (II line)

SD

PbR

Azacitidine

Chronic and acute myeloid leukaemia, myelodysplastic syndrome

SD

CS

Bortezomib

Multiple myeloma

Response scheme

CS

Cetuximab

Metastatic colorectal cancer

Rebate

PbR

Erlotinib

Non-small cell lung cancer

SD

CS

Gefitinib

Non-small cell lung cancer

Single fixed price

PbR

Ipilimumab

Metastatic melanoma

SD

PbR

Nilotinib

Chronic myeloid leukaemia (I line)

SD

CS

Chronic myeloid leukaemia (II line)

SD

PbR

Pazopanib

Metastatic renal cancer

SD

PbR

Sunitinib

Metastatic renal cancer

Free stock

CS

Trabectedin

Metastatic soft tissue sarcoma

Dose cap

PbR

Vemurafenib

Metastatic melanoma

SD

PbR

CS: cost-sharing; PbR: payment-by-result; SD: simple discount.

applying for money back from pharmaceutical companies. While the centralised and disruptive management of MEAs has further highlighted their substantial costs, the lack of transparency on commercially confidential PASs means there is no way of taking stock of their experience.

Policy implications We conducted a comparative analysis of marketaccess agreements in oncology in the Italian and English NHS according to the existing information, in order to assess their experiences almost a decade after their introduction. We focused on anti-cancer drugs because there are many contracts in this area. The emotive nature of cancer20 makes it difficult for health agencies to resist calls for reimbursement of even extremely expensive drugs with marginal efficacy.1,11 Although equivocal results from clinical trials have encouraged policymakers to put these drugs under performance-based contracts and to collect further evidence and improve their cost-effectiveness, these schemes contribute little to robust clinical assessment in practice, given the absence of randomisation and the uncertain relationship between short-term surrogate and hard endpoints and their timings. Simple financial-based

contracts seem more efficient as a means for health services to reduce outlay on costly anti-cancer drugs and achieve access for patients. We may reflect who gains most from marketaccess agreements. The manufacturer achieves access for a drug priced at a level that maximises the profits which may be taken from a health system and is kept commercial-in-confidence. The health system makes available to its patients costly but modestly effective drugs without paying their full list price. Who gains most depends very much on how these contracts are negotiated, designed and managed. However, the losers of the situation are likely to be small and low-income countries that do not have well-organised procedures or sufficient bargaining power to negotiate lower prices. When market-access agreements lead to prices which are not transparent, these schemes simply penalise those countries which rely on external reference pricing. This lack of transparency raises an issue of public interest on the international level. Declarations Competing interests: None declared Funding: None declared Ethical approval: Not applicable

Downloaded from jrs.sagepub.com by guest on August 20, 2015

XML Template (2014) [5.11.2014–6:27pm] //blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/JRSJ/Vol00000/140132/APPFile/SG-JRSJ140132.3d

(JRS)

[1–5] [PREPRINTER stage]

van de Vooren et al.

5

Guarantor: LG Contributorship: All authors contributed to the conception and design of this work, commented on drafts and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements: None Provenance: Not commissioned; peer-reviewed by Ida Fortino

References 1. Garattini S and Bertele V. Efficacy, safety, and cost of new anticancer drugs. BMJ 2002; 325: 269–271. 2. Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ and Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Pol 2010; 96: 179–190. 3. Garrison LP, Towse A, Briggs A, de Pouvourville G, Grueger J, Mohr P, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements—good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health 2013; 16: 703–719. 4. McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R and Menon D. Access with evidence development schemes: a framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28: 143–152. 5. Stafinski T, McCabe CJ and Menon D. Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into health care systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28: 113–142. 6. Adamski J, Godman B, Ofierska-Sujkowska G, Osin´ska B, Herholz H, Wendykowska K, et al. Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10: 153. 7. Garattini L, Curto A and Van de Vooren K. Italian risksharing agreements on drugs: are they worthwhile? Eur J Health Econ 2014 [Published online: 12 April 2014]. 8. Carlson JJ, Gries KS, Yeung K, Sullivan SD and Garrison LP Jr. Current status and trends in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements between healthcare payers and medical product manufacturers. Appl Health Econ Health Pol 2014; 12: 231–238. 9. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Registro Farmaci Oncologici sottoposti a Monitoraggio Rapporto Nazionale 2007. See http://antineoplastici.agenziafarmaco.it/ rapporto_RFOM_2007.htm (last checked 27 October 2014).

10. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Lista Aggiornata Dei Nuovi Registri. See http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/ it/content/lista-aggiornata-dei-nuovi-registri (last checked 27 October 2014). 11. Garattini L and Casadei G. Risk sharing agreements: what lessons from Italy? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 169–172. 12. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. L’uso dei farmaci in Italia. Rapporto nazionale anno 2012. Osservatorio Nazionale sull’impiego dei Medicinali (OsMed). See http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/sites/default/files/ Rapporto_OsMed_2012.pdf (last checked 27 October 2014). 13. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Riunione AIFA – CIPOMO, AIOM, SIFaCT e SIFO. See http://www. sifact.it/joomla/images/pdf/Verbale_Cipomo-AiomSifact-Sifo%20_2.pdf (last checked 27 October 2014). 14. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). List of Technologies with Approved Patient Access Schemes, Recommended by Nice for Use in the NHS. See http://www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/ Patient-access-schemes-liaison-unit/List-of-technologies-with-approved-Patient-Access-Schemes (last checked 27 October 2014). 15. Department of Health. Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS). See https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/pharmaceutical-priceregulation-scheme (last checked 27 October 2014). 16. Spoors J. Patient access schemes in the new NHS. Br J Healthc Manag 2012; 18: 412–418. 17. British Oncology Pharmacy Association (BOPA). A Report into the Uptake of Patient Access Schemes (PAS) in the NHS. See http://www.bopawebsite.org/ contentimages/publications/Report_into_Uptake_of_ Patient_Access_Schemes_8_11_09.pdf (last checked 27 October 2014). 18. Haynes S, Timm B, Hamerslag L, Wong G and Costello S. The Administrative Burden of Patient Access Schemes in the Changing UK Healthcare System: A Follow Up Study. See http://www.costellomedical.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/Madrid_Poster_PHP1521.pdf (last checked 27 October 2014). 19. Department of Health. Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) 2014. See https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/pharmaceuticalprice-regulation-scheme-2014 (last checked 27 October 2014). 20. Van de Vooren K, Curto A and Garattini L. Optional copayments on anti-cancer drugs. BMJ 2013; 346: f349.

Downloaded from jrs.sagepub.com by guest on August 20, 2015

Market-access agreements for anti-cancer drugs.

Market-access agreements for anti-cancer drugs. - PDF Download Free
196KB Sizes 2 Downloads 3 Views