Pricing and reimbursement mechanisms for advanced therapy medicinal products in 20 countries.

Introduction: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are a type of therapies that, in some cases, hold great potential for patients without an effective current therapeutic approach but they also present multiple challenges to payers. While there are many theoretical papers on pricing and reimbursement (P&R) options, original empirical research is very scarce. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive international review of regulatory and P&R decisions taken for all ATMPs with centralized European marketing authorization in March 2022. Methods: A survey was distributed in July 2022 to representatives of 46 countries. Results: Responses were received from 20 countries out of 46 (43.5%). 14 countries reimbursed at least one ATMP. Six countries in this survey reimbursed no ATMPs. Conclusion: Access to ATMPs is uneven across the countries included in this study. This arises from regulatory differences, commercial decisions by marketing authorization holders, and the divergent assessment processes and criteria applied by payers. Moving towards greater equality of access will require cooperation between countries and stakeholders, for example, through the WHO Regional Office for Europe's Access to Novel Medicines Platform.

An Industry Survey on Unmet Needs in South Korea's New Drug Listing System.

INTRODUCTION: Since introducing the positive listing system in 2007, the South Korean government has undergone multiple changes in its drug listing system. As there is a lack of studies that evaluate the system from an industry perspective, this paper examined South Korea's new drug listing system from the suppliers' perspective. METHODS: We surveyed members of the three main pharmaceutical industry associations online. The survey (a 5-point Likert scale) covered their satisfactory levels, demands, and updates on the current new drug listing system, especially pharmacoeconomic evaluation, pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemption, and risk-sharing agreement. RESULTS: A total of 56 respondents participated in the survey. The self-reported satisfaction level for value recognition of new drugs was 1.6 (± 0.7) points (5 points = very satisfied). The most highly demanded reforms for PE, RSA, and PEE were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold (92.9%), reimbursement scope expansion (91.1%), and eligible disease (83.9%). Lastly, they also claimed that the indication-based pricing system must be introduced (83.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Pricing and reimbursement policies need to improve in such a way that would enable better access to new drugs while still facilitating their development. Given the nature of the current system, some innovative rare disease treatments and anticancer drugs remain unreimbursed, resulting in low satisfaction levels across the pharmaceutical industry. Hence, pathways to speed up the reimbursement assessment process and expand the range of reimbursable diseases are required. Pharmaceutical companies are also important stakeholders, like in the case of clinicians and patients, and their opinions should also be considered in the process of pricing and reimbursement policy reforms.

Targeted combination therapies in oncology: Challenging regulatory frameworks designed for monotherapies in Europe.

The pharmaceutical value chain, including clinical trials, pricing, access, and reimbursement, is designed for classical monotherapies. Although there has been a paradigm shift that increases the relevance of targeted combination therapies (TCTs), regulation and common practice have been slow to adapt. We explored access to 23 TCTs for advanced melanoma and lung cancer as reported by 19 specialists from 17 leading cancer institutions in nine European countries. We find heterogeneous patient access to TCTs between countries, differences in country-specific regulations, and differences in the clinical practice of melanoma and lung cancer. Regulation that is better tailored to the context of combinational therapies can increase equity in access across Europe and promote an evidence-based and authorized use of combinations.

Effect of the copayment reduction system on accessibility to orphan drugs in South Korea.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the effect of the copayment reduction system on accessibility to orphan drugs (ODs) in South Korea. METHODS: Data on approval and reimbursement for drugs designated as ODs for the last 10 years (2012-2021) in South Korea were extracted. Among them, with 136 approved products as of 31 December 2022, the reimbursement rates and lead time to reimbursement between drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) and nondrugs for rare diseases (non-DRDs) were analyzed. The pricing and reimbursement (P&R) pathways between drugs for only rare diseases (DORDs) and drugs for rare and cancerous diseases (DRCDs) were compared. RESULTS: The reimbursement rates for DRDs and non-DRDs were 54.8% and 33.3%, respectively, and the lead time to reimbursement for DRDs and non-DRDs were 16.1 months and 31.2 months, respectively. The P&R pathways for DORDs and DRCDs were pharmacoeconomic evaluation waivers (21.7% and 52.6%), weighted average price (52.2% and 13.2%), and risk-sharing agreement (30.4% and 81.6%). CONCLUSION: The copayment reduction system may act as a driver and also barrier for the reimbursement of ODs. To expand treatment accessibility to ODs, it is necessary to consistently grants benefits in all processes from OD designation to market access.

Balancing medical innovation and affordability in the new healthcare ecosystem in China: Review of pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies.

The China Basic Medical Insurance Program was created in 1999 with three objectives: equal accessibility, affordability, and quality. Today, it has become the biggest medical insurance program in the world, covering 95% of China's population. Since 2015, China's healthcare ecosystem has been reshaped by increasing innovation, which has in turn been driven by regulatory reform, enhancement of research and development capability, and capital market development. There has also been improved regulatory efficiency to reduce lags in launching drugs. In 2022, nearly 20% of novel active substances launched globally were from China. China has also risen to become the second biggest contributor to innovation in terms of pipelines. Using a "fast-follow" strategy, many locally developed innovative drugs can compete with products from multinational companies in their quality and pricing. However, China's pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry will continue to face challenges in pricing and reimbursement, as well as a shortened product lifecycle with rapid price erosion. The government has already accelerated the timeline for updating the drug reimbursement list and is willing to create a high-quality medical insurance program. However, some obstacles are hard to overcome, including reimbursement for advanced therapies, limited funding and an increasing burden of disease due to an aging population. This article reviews the trajectory of medical innovation in China, including the challenges. Looking forward, balancing affordability and innovation will be critical for China to continue the trajectory of growth. The article also offers some suggestions for future policy reform, including optimizing reimbursement efficiency with a focus on high-quality solutions, enhancing the value assessment framework, payer repositioning from "value buyer" to "strategic buyer", and developing alternative market access pathways for innovative drugs.

A Proposal for Value-Based Managed Entry Agreements in an Environment of Technological Change and Economic Challenge for Publicly Funded Healthcare Systems.

Managed entry agreements (MEA) represent one of the main topics of discussion between the European National Payers Authorities. Several initiatives on the subject have been organized over the past few years and the scientific literature is full of publications on the subject. There is currently little international sharing of information between payers, mainly as a result of the confidentiality issues. There are potential benefits from the mutual sharing of information, both about the existence of MEAs and on the outcomes and results. The importance of involving all the players in the decision-making process on market access for a medicinal product (MP) is that it may help to make new therapies available to patients in a shorter time. The aim of this project is to propose a new pathway of value-based MEA (VBMEA), based on the analysis of the current Italian pricing and reimbursement framework. This requires elaboration of a transparent appraisal and MEA details with at least a 24-month contract. The price of the MP is therefore valued based on the analysis of the VBMEA registries of the Italian Medicines Agency. Although the proposal focuses on the Italian context, a similar approach could also be adapted in other nations, considering the particularities of the single health technology assessment (HTA)/payer system.

Challenges and Opportunities With Routinely Collected Data on the Utilization of Cancer Medicines. Perspectives From Health Authority Personnel Across 18 European Countries.

Background: Rising expenditure for new cancer medicines is accelerating concerns that their costs will become unsustainable for universal healthcare access. Moreover, early market access of new oncology medicines lacking appropriate clinical evaluation generates uncertainty over their cost-effectiveness and increases expenditure for unknown health gain. Patient-level data can complement clinical trials and generate better evidence on the effectiveness, safety and outcomes of these new medicines in routine care. This can support policy decisions including funding. Consequently, there is a need for improving datasets for establishing real-world outcomes of newly launched oncology medicines. Aim: To outline the types of available datasets for collecting patient-level data for oncology among different European countries. Additionally, to highlight concerns regarding the use and availability of such data from a health authority perspective as well as possibilities for cross-national collaboration to improve data collection and inform decision-making. Methods: A mixed methods approach was undertaken through a cross-sectional questionnaire followed-up by a focus group discussion. Participants were selected by purposive sampling to represent stakeholders across different European countries and healthcare settings. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantifiable questions, whilst content analysis was employed for open-ended questions. Results: 25 respondents across 18 European countries provided their insights on the types of datasets collecting oncology data, including hospital records, cancer, prescription and medicine registers. The most available is expenditure data whilst data concerning effectiveness, safety and outcomes is less available, and there are concerns with data validity. A major constraint to data collection is the lack of comprehensive registries and limited data on effectiveness, safety and outcomes of new medicines. Data ownership limits data accessibility as well as possibilities for linkage, and data collection is time-consuming, necessitating dedicated staff and better systems to facilitate the process. Cross-national collaboration is challenging but the engagement of multiple stakeholders is a key step to reach common goals through research. Conclusion: This study acts as a starting point for future research on patient-level databases for oncology across Europe. Future recommendations will require continued engagement in research, building on current initiatives and involving multiple stakeholders to establish guidelines and commitments for transparency and data sharing.

Feasibility study to characterize price and reimbursement decision-making criteria for the inclusion of new drugs in the Spanish National Health System: the cefiderocol example.

OBJECTIVES: The reimbursement of medicines by the Spanish National Health System (NHS) is based on a set of criteria included in the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2015 (RDL 1/2015). The Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines and Healthcare Products (CIPM) is responsible for the final price and reimbursement (P&R) decision, including on its resolutions the criteria listed in the law by which the reimbursement of a drug is approved or denied. Nevertheless, the information behind its reasoning is not provided. The present study aims to characterize the P&R criteria of the RDL 1/2015 through criteria definitions from other countries to improve the P&R evaluation in Spain. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary experts panel with relevant experience in drug evaluation and decision making at national, regional, and local level in Spain was selected for this study. A literature review to characterize the criteria listed in the RDL 1/2015 was performed based on the most relevant and recognized Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies in Europe, UK, and Canada. Eventually, a feasibility study was performed to evaluate the novel drug cefiderocol using the characterized criteria, including a reflective discussion of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached among the multidisciplinary experts on the characterization of the criteria set by the law. The feasibility of their application to a new drug was exploratory, notwithstanding it showed the potential to improve the transparency as well as to offer a more structured rationale for the CIPM to evaluate the inclusion of new drugs in the Spanish NHS.

The Payer License Agreement, or "Netflix model," for hepatitis C virus therapies enables universal treatment access, lowers costs and incentivizes innovation and competition.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High unit prices of treatments limit access. For epidemics like that of hepatitis C virus (HCV), reduced treatment access increases prevalence and incidence, making the infectious disease increasingly difficult to manage. The objective of the current study was to construct and test an alternative pricing model, the Payer License Agreement (PLA), and determine whether it could improve outcomes, cut costs and incentivize innovation versus the current unit-based pricing model. METHODS: We built and used computational models of hepatitis C disease progression, treatment, and pricing in historical and future scenarios and quantitatively analyzed their economic and epidemiological impact in three high-income countries. RESULTS: This study had three key results regarding HCV treatment. First, if the PLA model had been implemented when interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) combinations launched, the number of patients treated and cured would have more than doubled in the first three years, while the liver-related deaths (LRDs) would have decreased by around 40%. Second, if the PLA model had been implemented beginning in 2018, the year that several Netflix-like payment models were under implementation, the number of treated and cured patients would nearly double, and the LRDs would decline by more than 55%. Third, implementing the PLA model would result in a decline in total payer costs of more than 25%, with an increase to pharmaceutical manufacturer revenues of 10%. These results were true across the three healthcare landscapes studied, the USA, the UK and Italy, and were robust against variations to critical model parameters through sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that implementation of the PLA model in high-income countries across a variety of health system contexts would improve patient outcomes at lower payer cost with more stable revenue for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Health policy-makers in high-income countries should consider the PLA model for application to more cost-effective management of HCV, and explore its application for other infectious diseases with curative therapies available now or soon.

Access and pricing of medicines for patients with rare diseases in the European Union: an industry perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The EU Orphan Regulation has successfully stimulated R&D of medicines for rare diseases, resulting in a substantial increase of orphan designations and authorized orphan medicinal products in the EU during last decade. Despite such advances, access to treatment across the 27 EU Member States is still highly variable. AREAS COVERED: We provide an overview of the current situation of patient access to orphan drugs in the EU. We discuss the EU policy landscape regarding joint assessment and pricing & reimbursement negotiations of medicinal products, price and sustainability of orphan drugs for health care systems, and the importance of Real-World Data and registry infrastructures for rare diseases. Additionally, we provide recommendations for areas of improvement throughout the lifecycle of orphan drugs, aiming to preserve a positive R&D climate for rare diseases in the EU and accelerate patient access. EXPERT OPINION: The EU needs to maintain a patient-centric pharmaceutical ecosystem that encourages long-term investments and rewards innovation in areas of high unmet medical need. Areas of potential improvement range from enhanced alignment of regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and use of specific value frameworks for the assessment of orphan drugs to the development of registry infrastructures and innovative performance-based pricing agreements.

Semimonthly Table of Contents Application of health technology assessment in 4 European countries and its enlightenment to China / 中国药房

OBJECTIVE To provide referen ce for improving the application of health technology assessment （HTA） in decision-making for health insurance drugs in China. METHODS The application of HTA in decision-making for health insurance drugs in Britain ，France，Germany and Sweden were sorted out and analyzed from two aspects ：the establishment of HTA institutions and the process of HTA. The suggestions for improvement were put forward ，combined with the implementation of HTA in China. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS Britain，France，Germany and Sweden have set up special HTA institutions ，which perform their respective duties and cooperate closely. During the implementation of HTA ，the above four countries have set different value assessment criteria to screen drugs with “high cost performance ”，all stakeholders actively participate ，make the evaluation results and decisions public ，set up objection handling links ，open a rapid evaluation channel to improve the accessibility of drugs ，and re-evaluate the drugs included in the reimbursement list to ensure the sustainability of medical insurance. It is suggested that China should combine the national conditions ，strengthen the cooperation of HTA institutions ，focus on talent training and comprehensive value assessment criteria ， promote stakeholder ’s participation ， improve the transparency of decision-making，and improve the implementation procedures of HTA in China.

A Review of the Evidence on Attitudes, Perceived Impacts and Motivational Factors for European Member State Collaboration for Pricing and Reimbursement of Medicines: Time for the EEA Member States to Apply Their Experience and Expertise in Evidence-Based Decision Making to Their Current Pharmaceutical Policy Challenges.

In 2018/2019 there were a number of initiatives for collaboration between Member States in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment. In view of the perceived benefits from collaboration, the experiences and challenges of these collaborative initiatives and the possible implications of the proposed legislation, a study of the evidence on attitudes, perceived impacts and the motivational factors towards European Member State collaboration regarding the pricing and reimbursement of medicines was conducted. This study adopted an evidence-based management approach by Barends and Rousseau. The main findings showed that Member States differed in their motivation for collaboration for different pharmaceutical activities. Member States favoured voluntary co-operation for all activities of pricing and reimbursement except for relative effectiveness assessments where Member State authorities had divergent attitudes and prioritised activities related to the sustainability of their healthcare systems and access to medicines. Contrastingly pharmaceutical companies strongly favoured mandatory cooperation for evaluation. Member States motivation for collaboration was highly dependent on the purpose, political will, implementation climate and cultural factors. Currently, with the experiences of ongoing collaborations, following the progress of the discussion at Council, and with a number of inititatives for new pharmaceutical strategy and policy, it is proposed that Member States use their trust, expertise and knowledge of application of evidence-based decision making for pricing and reimbursement of medicines and apply it to decide the future model for Member State collaboration. The applicability of principles of evidence-based management to pharmaceutical policy can be used as a starting point.

Accelerating patient access to oncology medicines with multiple indications in Europe.

Background: In recent years, innovation in oncology has created new challenges for pricing and reimbursement systems. Oncology medicines with multiple indications face a number of access challenges: (1) the number of assessments and administrative burden; (2) aligning price to different values of the same product; (3) managing clinical uncertainty at time of launch; and (4) managing budget uncertainty. These challenges impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. Consequently, countries have taken steps to facilitate patient access. Methods: Drawing on the experience across Europe we have reviewed different mechanisms countries have adopted that address these challenges. These include approaches aimed directly at the issue, multi-year-multi-indication (MYMI) agreements (BE, NL), and other approaches to manage access: flexible access agreements for new indications with clinical uncertainty (UK); development of a new agreement for each new indication (IT); and immediate access for new indications and bundled assessments (DE). Results: MYMI agreements are valuable where existing rules mean that every indication faces the same upfront evaluation process that delays patient access. They are also useful in managing budget impact and uncertainty. Other approaches that adopt an indication-specific approach helps manage clinical uncertainty at the time of launch and realise different values for the same product. They can help align price to value, even though indication-based pricing does not exist. Bundled assessments reduce the administrative burden for stakeholders, and the benefits of immediate reimbursement is that patient access is not delayed. Conclusion: The challenges for medicines with multiple indications impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. MYMI agreements have created a more pragmatic approach to HTA for medicines with multiple indications to ensure both fast and broad patient access. Continued innovation in oncology will require further innovative approaches in pricing and reimbursement. It is important that policymakers, payers and manufacturers engage in early discussions and are willing to find new solutions to help accelerate patient access to innovative therapies.

Exploring the opportunities for alignment of regulatory postauthorization requirements and data required for performance-based managed entry agreements.

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers.

Price and reimbursement of advanced therapeutic medicinal products in Europe: are assessment and appraisal diverging from expert recommendations?

BACKGROUND: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent an important cornerstone for innovation in healthcare. However, uncertainty on the value, the high average cost per patient and their one-shot nature has raised a debate on their assessment and appraisal process for pricing and reimbursement (P&R) purposes. This debate led experts providing for recommendations on this topic. Our primary objective is to investigate the ATMPs P&R process in the main five European countries and to understand if this process is consistent with published P&R expert recommendations. We also investigated the current ATMP pipelines to understand if future ATMPs will create challenges for their P&R process. METHODS: P&R framework for ATMPs in the European Major five (EU5) countries was investigated through a literature search on PubMed, institutional websites of National Health Authorities and grey literature. The ATMPs pipeline database was populated from a clinical trial database (clinicaltrials.gov), relying on inclusion and exclusion criteria retrieved from the literature. RESULTS: Reimbursement status of ATMPs is different across the EU5 countries, with the exception of CAR-Ts which are reimbursed in all countries. Standard P&R process in place for other medicinal products is extended to ATMPs, with the exception of some cases in Germany. List prices, where available, are high and, tend to be aligned across countries. Outcome-based Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) have been extensively used for ATMPs. Extra-funds for hospitals managing ATMPs were provided only in Germany and, as additional fund per episode, in France. The accreditation process of hospitals for ATMPs management was in most countries managed by the national authorities. As far as ATMPs pipeline is concerned, ATMPs in development are mostly targeting non-rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Expert recommendations for ATMPs P&R were partially applied: the role of outcome-based MEAs has increased and the selection process of the centres authorized to use these treatments has been enhanced; additional funding for ATMPs management to accredited centres has not been completely considered and annuity payment and broader perspective in cost considerations are far from being put in place. These recommendations should be considered for future P&R negotiations to pursue rational resource allocation and deal with budget constraints.

Trends in the pricing and reimbursement of new anticancer drugs in South Korea: an analysis of listed anticancer drugs during the past three years.

Objective: This study aimed to examine patient accessibility to new anticancer drugs including reimbursement coverage, time to listing, and listing price during the recent 3 years after the introduction of alternative pricing and reimbursement pathways in South Korea.Methods: Anticancer drugs were selected for analysis from the new drugs reviewed from January 2017 to March 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to present the levels of the listing prices. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the list price in comparison to the External Reference Price(ERP) and the time to listing.Results: Thirty-two anticancer drugs were included in analysis. The average time to listing for these drugs was 36.7 months. The ratio of the listing price in comparison with Average Adjusted Price from seven reference countries was from 12.6% to 90.2%. Pearson's correlation coefficient for the correlation between the ratio of the listing price to the ERP and the time to listing was -0.37 and was statistically significant (p = 0.035).Conclusions: Policies that relate to the scope of reimbursement, time to reimbursement, and list price should be able to equally reflect patient accessibility and national health insurance finances, as well as the impact on industry as a whole.

An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from an Italian National Health Service perspective, considering the evolving Italian landscape in terms of new reimbursement agreements trend. METHODS: This analysis is an update of the previously published cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate recent 2019 costs and additional changes regarding drug discounting. A partitioned-survival analysis model with three different health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was utilized. Outcomes included progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs calculated for both treatments. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit (NMB) of pazopanib versus sunitinib. In the base case analysis, a time horizon of 5 years was used and future costs and QALYs were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. An impact of methodological and parameter uncertainly on base case results was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, pazopanib had higher QALYs (+0.060) at lower costs (-€5,857) versus sunitinib, hence it dominated sunitinib. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the NMB with pazopanib were €7,647 and €8,841 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 97.5% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 95.4% at a threshold of €30,000, and 90.2% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions as demonstrated by deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic RCC in Italy.

Understanding the trends in international agreements on pricing and reimbursement for newly marketed medicines and their implications for access to medicines: a computational text analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are struggling with unprecedented drug spending and governments have devised various policy options to manage high-priced medicines. Meanwhile, some pricing and reimbursement processes are currently moving under the jurisdiction of international agreements. This study aims to understand trends in international agreements from the perspectives of pricing and reimbursement policies for newly marketed medicines. METHODS: We proposed the framework to interpret the international agreements as code and applied computational text analysis to understand international agreements as data. In particular, we selected the AUSFTA, KORUS, and TPP to assess the progress and evolution in international agreements and investigate the existing relevant content on the pricing and reimbursement of newly marketed medicines. RESULTS: Similar to the provisions for intellectual property, the scope of international agreements regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions are broadened and strengthened. Over time, the domain of transparency, re-naming procedural fairness, has changed significantly more than the remaining domains. Pharmaceutical companies will have more opportunities to advocate for their positions, to protect their interests in decision processes, to investigate the decisions on listings and setting the amounts of reimbursement, and to challenge these decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Recently signed international agreements favor companies over governments with underscoring procedural fairness and timely access. However, access to affordable medicines is the goal towards which international agreements should aim. In a similar vein, substantial fairness and the accountability of companies should be discussed when negotiating agreements or adopting international agreements through domestic legislation.

HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies.

This last decade has been marked by significant advances in the development of cell and gene (C&G) therapies, such as gene targeting or stem cell-based therapies. C&G therapies offer transformative benefits to patients but present a challenge to current health technology decision-making systems because they are typically reviewed when clinical efficacy data are very limited and when there is uncertainty about the long-term durability of outcomes. These challenges are not unique to C&G therapies, but they face more of these barriers, reflecting the need for adapting existing value assessment frameworks. Still, C&G therapies have the potential to be cost-effective even at very high price points. The impact on healthcare budgets will depend on the success rate of pipeline assets and on the extent to which C&G therapies will expand to wider pathologies beyond rare or ultra-rare diseases. Getting pricing and reimbursement models right is important for incentivising research and development investment while not jeopardising the sustainability of healthcare systems. Payers and manufacturers therefore need to acknowledge each other's constraints-limitations in the evidence generation on the manufacturer side, budget considerations on the payer side-and embrace innovative thinking and approaches to ensure timely delivery of therapies to patients. Several experts in health technology assessment and clinical experts have worked together to produce this publication and identify methodological and policy options to improve the assessment of C&G therapies, and make it happen better, faster and sustainably in the coming years.

How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review.

In Europe, there were almost twice as many patents granted for medical technology (13,795) compared to pharmaceuticals (7441) in 2018. It is important to ask how to integrate such an amount of innovations into routine clinical practice and how to measure the value it brings to the healthcare system. Given the novelty of digital health interventions (DHI), one can even question whether the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) approach developed for pharmaceuticals can be used or whether we need to develop a new DHI's value assessment framework. We conducted a systematic literature review of published DHIs' assessment guidelines. Each publication was analyzed with a 12-items checklist based on a EUnetHTA core model enriched with additional criteria such as usability, interoperability, and data security. In total, 11 value assessment guidelines were identified. The review revealed that safety, clinical effectiveness, usability, economic aspects, and interoperability were most often discussed (seven out of 11). More than half of the guidelines addressed organizational impact, data security, choice of comparator, and technical considerations (six out of 11). The unmet medical needs (three out of 11), along with the ethical (two out of 11) and legal aspects (one out of 11), were given the least attention. No author provided an analytical framework for the calculation of clinical and economic outcomes. We elicited five recommendations for the choice of DHI's value criteria and a methodological suggestion for the pricing and reimbursement framework. Our conclusions lead to the need for a new DHI's value assessment framework instead of a QALY approach.