ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The economic evaluation of healthcare technologies has become in many countries a basic tool for reimbursement, pricing and purchasing decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to examine the institutional, legal, and political factors that have impeded the application of economic evaluation and the criterion of efficiency in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain. METHODS: Narrative description of the current institutional framework for the use of economic evaluation in pricing and reimbursement in Spain, legal and policy framework in the field of evaluation of new medicines, and stakeholder initiatives and policies related to the use of economic evaluation outside of the pricing and reimbursement process. RESULTS: Spain has an institutional framework created and established over the last years that could have facilitated a formal use of economic evaluation in the process of pricing and reimbursement. Nevertheless, the real use of economic evaluation at the central or regional level is still unknown, although application of the efficiency criterion, linking to cost-effectiveness, has been clearly required by Spanish laws and regulations at the national level. We highlight a certain degree of moral hazard from the central government that is not directly responsible for the budget impact of reimbursement and pricing decisions. There are currently a number of ongoing initiatives in the field of economic evaluation by various agents, but they remain uncoordinated. CONCLUSIONS: Poor governance at the highest level of decision making is the main reason for the lack of interest in economic evaluation. A profound political change, supported by transparency and accountability, is required before the criterion of efficiency can be fully considered in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain.
Subject(s)
Drug Costs , Health Care Rationing/economics , Health Policy/economics , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/economics , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Government Regulation , Healthcare Disparities/economics , Humans , Policy Making , Politics , Spain , Stakeholder ParticipationABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Economic evaluations are becoming increasingly important due to limitations in economic resources, the expense of many new treatments, the need to allocate health spending as effectively as possible, and the need to inform decision makers. Based on the data from the apixaban studies (ARISTOTLE and AVERROES), several economic evaluations have been performed in various countries to demonstrate the efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin and aspirin or other new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for preventing stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations with apixaban in the indication of stroke prevention in patients with NVAF. METHODS: A search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Index Medicus Español was conducted in June 2015. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. The main characteristics were recorded for all relevant articles after being reviewed. In addition, a weighted version of the Drummond's checklist was used to further assess the quality of the selected studies. RESULTS: After review, 26 cost-effectiveness analyses through Markov models were included; the identified economic evaluations represent different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, discount rates, medical costs, and healthcare systems. Apixaban was compared with warfarin/acenocoumarol in 7 of them (27%), with warfarin/NOACs in 14 (54%), with aspirin in 2 (8%), and with warfarin/aspirin in 3 (11%). Models were conducted from Europe (69%), USA (23%), Australia (4%), and Latin America (4%). All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, 92% reported using a payer perspective, and 8% using a societal perspective; the median quality score of the selected studies was 89 (out of 119), with a range of 55-103. In models performed in Europe, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of apixaban versus warfarin ranged from 5607/QALY to 57,245/QALY, while ICERs versus aspirin ranged from being dominant to 7334/QALY. In models carried out in the USA, ICERs of apixaban versus warfarin ranged from being dominant to $93,063/QALY. CONCLUSION: Different cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that apixaban is a cost-effective therapeutic option according to the WTP thresholds used in countries where cost-effectiveness analyses, were performed. FUNDING: BMS and Pfizer.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Spain, the decision of Price and Reimbursement (P&R) of a new drug must be taken between 180-270 days. The objective of this study was to assess the reimbursement timing in Spain for innovative drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2008 and December 2013 and to explore the potential impact of drug's price on this time. METHODS: Drugs approved were extracted from EMA's website, authorization dates in Spain from the Spanish Agency (AEMPS) and, P&R dates and prices from Nomenclátor and BotPlus. Depending on days from approval to reimbursement, drugs were quick (<180), on time (180-270) and delayed (>270). Depending on posology: chronic or acute. Depending on dispensing conditions: retail or hospital drugs. It was calculated: median, maximum, minimum, first, and third quartiles of time until reimbursement. RESULTS: 431 drugs were approved by EMA; 285 were innovative, from them 147 were approved by the AEMPS and reimbursed: 103 chronic and 44 acute. Median price/day was 2.44 for chronic and 21 for acute. From 2008-2011, 80% of drugs were reimbursed, in 2012 21% and in 2013 17%. Time from approval to reimbursement move from 230 days in 2009 to 431 days in 2013. From the 139 drugs with reimbursement date 33 were quick, 44 on time and 62 delayed. CONCLUSIONS: The median time from approval by the EMA of innovative drugs since the reimbursement in Spain in 2013 is double that of 2008. The main driver of delays in the process of P&R seems to be the budget impact of the drug instead of its unit price.
Subject(s)
National Health Programs/statistics & numerical data , Reimbursement Mechanisms/statistics & numerical data , Therapies, Investigational/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Drug Approval , Europe , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , National Health Programs/economics , Spain , Time Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
Fundamentos: En España la decisión de precio y financiación (PyF) de un nuevo medicamento debe tomarse entre 180 y 270 días. El objetivo de este estudio fue valorar el tiempo hasta la financiación en España de los medicamentos innovadores aprobados por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos (EMA) entre enero 2008 y diciembre 2013 y explorar el impacto potencial del precio del fármaco sobre este tiempo. Métodos: Los medicamentos aprobados se obtuvieron de la web de la EMA, las fechas de autorización de la Agencia Española del Medicamento (AEMPS) y las fechas del PyF y los precios del Nomenclátor y BotPlus. Según los días desde la aprobación hasta la financiación se clasificó a los medicamentos en rápidos (<180), en plazo (180-270) y con demora (>270). Según la duración del tratamiento en crónicos o agudos. Y según las condiciones de dispensación: de farmacia u hospital. Del tiempo transcurrido hasta la financiación, se calculó la mediana, el máximo, el mínimo así como el primer y tercer cuartiles. Resultados: Durante el período de estudio fueron aprobados por la EMA 431 medicamentos, de los cuales 285 eran innovadores. De estos 147 fueron aprobados por la AEMPS y financiados: 103 para tratamientos crónicos y 44 para agudos. La mediana del precio/día fue de 2,44 para crónicos y 21 para agudos. De 2008-2011 fueron financiados el 80% , en 2012 el 21% y en 2013 el 17%. El tiempo hasta la financiación pasó de 230 días en 2009 a 431 en 2013. Los 139 medicamentos con fecha de financiación fueron: 33 rápidos, 44 en plazo y 62 con demora. Conclusiones: La mediana del tiempo desde la aprobación por la EMA de los medicamentos innovadores hasta su financiación en España en 2013 es el doble que en 2008. El motor principal de los retrasos en el proceso de PyF parece ser el impacto presupuestario del fármaco más que su precio unitario (AU)
Background: In Spain, the decision of Price and Reimbursement (P&R) of a new drug must be taken between 180-270 days. The objective of this study was to assess the reimbursement timing in Spain for innovative drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2008 and December 2013 and to explore the potential impact of drugs price on this time. Methods: Drugs approved were extracted from EMAs website, authorization dates in Spain from the Spanish Agency (AEMPS) and, P&R dates and prices from Nomenclátor and BotPlus. Depending on days from approval to reimbursement, drugs were quick (<180), on time (180-270) and delayed (>270). Depending on posology: chronic or acute. Depending on dispensing conditions: retail or hospital drugs. It was calculated: median, maximum, minimum, first, and third quartiles of time until reimbursement. Results: 431 drugs were approved by EMA; 285 were innovative, from them 147 were approved by the AEMPS and reimbursed: 103 chronic and 44 acute. Median price/day was 2.44 for chronic and 21 for acute. From 2008-2011, 80% of drugs were reimbursed, in 2012 21% and in 2013 17%. Time from approval to reimbursement move from 230 days in 2009 to 431 days in 2013. From the 139 drugs with reimbursement date 33 were quick, 44 on time and 62 delayed. Conclusions: The median time from approval by the EMA of innovative drugs since the reimbursement in Spain in 2013 is double that of 2008. The main driver of delays in the process of P&R seems to be the budget impact of the drug instead of its unit price (AU)
