Unlocking the potential of established products: toward new incentives rewarding innovation in Europe.

Background: Many established products (EPs - marketed for eight years or more) are widely used off-label despite little evidence on benefit-risk ratio. This exposes patients to risks related to safety and lack of efficacy, and healthcare providers to liability. Introducing new indications for EPs may represent a high societal value; however, manufacturers rarely invest in R&D for EPs. The objective of this research was to describe incentives and disincentives for developing new indications for EPs in Europe and to investigate consequences of current policies. Methods: Targeted literature search and expert panel meetings. Results: Within the current European-level and national-level regulatory framework there are limited incentives for development of new indications with EPs. Extension of indication normally does not allow the price to be increased or maintained, the market protection period to be extended, or exclusion from a reference price system. New indication frequently triggers re-evaluation, resulting in price erosion, regardless of the level of added value with the new indication. In consequence, manufacturers are more prone to undertake R&D efforts at early to mid-stage of product life cycle rather than with EPs, or to invest in new chemical entities, even in therapeutic areas with broad off-label use. This represents a potentially missed opportunity as developing new indications for EPs offers an alternative to off-label use or lengthy and expensive R&D for new therapies, opens new opportunities for potentially cost-effective treatment alternatives, as well as greater equity in patients' access to treatment options. Conclusion: There are potential benefits from the development of new indications for EPs that are currently not being realized due to a lack of regulatory and pricing incentives in Europe. Incentives for orphan or paediatric drugs have proven to be effective in promoting R&D. Similarly, incentives to promote R&D in EPs should be developed, for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems.

The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements : Current Debate.

The high cost of novel treatments is the major driver of negative or restricted reimbursement decisions by healthcare payers in many countries. Costly drugs can be subject to Market Access Agreements (MAAs), which are financial (Commercial Agreements [CAs]) or outcomes-based (Payment for Performance Agreements [P4Ps] or Coverage with Evidence Development agreements [CEDs]). Outcomes in outcomes-based MAAs are assessed through changes in surrogate endpoints (SEPs) or patient-relevant endpoints (PEPs). In May 2015, we reviewed published and grey literature on MAAs between manufacturers and large, institutionalised payers from all geographical areas, and classified the schemes into CAs, P4Ps and CEDs, as well as by therapeutic area and country. Outcomes-based MAAs were further categorized by the endpoint used. Overall, we identified 143 MAAs, 56 (39.2 %) of which were pure CAs, 53 (37.1 %) were CEDs, and 34 (23.8 %) were P4Ps. Among the CEDs, 49 were PEP CEDs and four were SEP CEDs; of the 34 P4Ps, 29 were SEP P4Ps for 30 drugs, and five were PEP P4Ps for at least six drugs; and among 87 outcomes-based MAAs (CEDs + P4Ps), PEP CEDs were the most common (56.3 %), followed by SEP P4Ps (34.1 %). The high proportion of SEPs used in P4Ps contrasts with the high proportion of PEPs used in CEDs. CEDs employ PEPs and it appears that they are used to reduce uncertainty about a drug's clinical outcomes and/or real-life use, and thus allow payers to align a product's value with price. We argue that P4Ps do not reduce uncertainty about real-life effectiveness and can only constitute an outcome guarantee for payers if they are based on PEPs or validated SEPs.

Drug pricing reform in China: analysis of piloted approaches and potential impact of the reform.

OBJECTIVES: In 2009, the Chinese government launched a national healthcare reform programme aiming to control healthcare expenditure and increase the quality of care. As part of this programme, a new drug pricing reform was initiated on 1 June 2015. The objective of this study was to describe the changing landscape of drug pricing policy in China and analyse the potential impact of the reform. METHODS: The authors conducted thorough research on the drug pricing reform using three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, and Weipu), Chinese health authority websites, relevant press releases, and pharmaceutical blogs and discussion forums. This research was complemented with qualitative research based on targeted interviews with key Chinese opinion leaders representing the authorities' and prescribers' perspectives. RESULTS: With the current reform, the government has attempted to replace its direct control over the prices of reimbursable drugs with indirect, incentive-driven influence. Although the exact implementation of the reform remains unclear at the moment, the changes introduced so far and the pilot project designs indicate that China is considering adaptation of some form of internal and external reference pricing policies, commonly used in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Several challenges related to the potential new mechanism were identified: 1) the risk of hospital underfunding, if hospital funding reform is not prioritised; 2) the risk of promoting the use of cheap, low-quality drugs, if a reliable quality control system is not in place and discrepancy between the available drugs is present; 3) the risk of increasing disparity in access to care between poor and rich regions, in case of country-wide price convergence; and 4) the risk of industry underinvestment, resulting in reduced competition, issues with quality and sustainability of supply, and potentially negative social impact. CONCLUSIONS: Foreign pricing policies cannot be transferred to China without prioritising historical, cultural, and economic contextualisation. Otherwise, the new policy may be counterproductive and affect the whole healthcare chain, as well as the health outcomes of Chinese patients.

Conflict of interest in Health Technology Assessment decisions: case law in France and impact on reimbursement decisions.

The slow reaction of French authorities to the so-called Mediator® saga in 2009 in France led to investigations that questioned the way conflicts of interest are reported. France implemented the Loi Bertrand ('Bertrand Law') in May 2013, known as the 'French Sunshine Act', with the aim of specifying the scope of disclosure obligations. This policy research reviewed the Loi Bertrand and reported case law from the French Council of State (COS) related to conflicts of interest in French Health technology assessment (HTA) opinion. The Loi Bertrand requires the publication of most of the agreements concluded between health-care professionals and companies and covers a vast range of health products. Commercial sales agreements of goods and services concluded between manufacturers and health-care professionals are a strong exception to this disclosure obligation. Six cases examined by the COS were analyzed, most of them related to the publication of guidelines or the removal of products from the list of reimbursed drugs and devices. These cases have been reviewed, as well as the impact of the ruling on reimbursement decisions. Four cases led to suspension or invalidation of decisions based on the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) recommendations due to conflicts of interest. In the two other cases, the HAS provided post hoc declarations of interest when required by the COS, and the COS considered the conflicts of interest as irrelevant for the decision. It appears that the COS based its decisions on two main criteria: the acknowledgement of negative conflicts of interest (a link with competitors) and the absence of declarations of conflicts of interest, which have to be presented when required by legal authorities irrespective of when they were completed (even posterior to the HAS opinion). However, the number of cases that have been decided against the HAS remains very limited with respect to the volume of assessments performed yearly. The strengthening of the regulation on declarations of interest might lead to more transparency but also to more cases decided by the COS. A new press investigation (in March 2015) related to alleged cases of conflict of interests led policy makers to amend the Bertrand Law in April 2015 and require the disclosure of amounts paid to health-care professionals by the industry.

Pharmaceutical expenditure forecast model to support health policy decision making.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: With constant incentives for healthcare payers to contain their pharmaceutical budgets, modelling policy decision impact became critical. The objective of this project was to test the impact of various policy decisions on pharmaceutical budget (developed for the European Commission for the project 'European Union (EU) Pharmaceutical expenditure forecast' - http://ec.europa.eu/health/healthcare/key_documents/index_en.htm). METHODS: A model was built to assess policy scenarios' impact on the pharmaceutical budgets of seven member states of the EU, namely France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. The following scenarios were tested: expanding the UK policies to EU, changing time to market access, modifying generic price and penetration, shifting the distribution chain of biosimilars (retail/hospital). RESULTS: Applying the UK policy resulted in dramatic savings for Germany (10 times the base case forecast) and substantial additional savings for France and Portugal (2 and 4 times the base case forecast, respectively). Delaying time to market was found be to a very powerful tool to reduce pharmaceutical expenditure. Applying the EU transparency directive (6-month process for pricing and reimbursement) increased pharmaceutical expenditure for all countries (from 1.1 to 4 times the base case forecast), except in Germany (additional savings). Decreasing the price of generics and boosting the penetration rate, as well as shifting distribution of biosimilars through hospital chain were also key methods to reduce pharmaceutical expenditure. Change in the level of reimbursement rate to 100% in all countries led to an important increase in the pharmaceutical budget. CONCLUSIONS: Forecasting pharmaceutical expenditure is a critical exercise to inform policy decision makers. The most important leverages identified by the model on pharmaceutical budget were driven by generic and biosimilar prices, penetration rate, and distribution. Reducing, even slightly, the prices of generics had a major impact on savings. However, very aggressive pricing of generic and biosimilar products might make this market unattractive and can be counterproductive. Worth noting, delaying time to access innovative products was also identified as an effective leverage to increase savings but might not be a desirable policy for breakthrough products. Increasing patient financial contributions, either directly or indirectly via their private insurances, is a more likely scenario rather than expanding the national pharmaceutical expenditure coverage.

EU pharmaceutical expenditure forecast.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With constant incentives for healthcare payers to contain their pharmaceutical budgets, forecasting has become critically important. Some countries have, for instance, developed pharmaceutical horizon scanning units. The objective of this project was to build a model to assess the net effect of the entrance of new patented medicinal products versus medicinal products going off-patent, with a defined forecast horizon, on selected European Union (EU) Member States' pharmaceutical budgets. This model took into account population ageing, as well as current and future country-specific pricing, reimbursement, and market access policies (the project was performed for the European Commission; see http://ec.europa.eu/health/healthcare/key_documents/index_en.htm). METHOD: In order to have a representative heterogeneity of EU Member States, the following countries were selected for the analysis: France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. A forecasting period of 5 years (2012-2016) was chosen to assess the net pharmaceutical budget impact. A model for generics and biosimilars was developed for each country. The model estimated a separate and combined effect of the direct and indirect impacts of the patent cliff. A second model, estimating the sales development and the risk of development failure, was developed for new drugs. New drugs were reviewed individually to assess their clinical potential and translate it into commercial potential. The forecast was carried out according to three perspectives (healthcare public payer, society, and manufacturer), and several types of distribution chains (retail, hospital, and combined retail and hospital). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: According to the model, all countries experienced drug budget reductions except Poland (+€41 million). Savings were expected to be the highest in the United Kingdom (-€9,367 million), France (-€5,589 million), and, far behind them, Germany (-€831 million), Greece (-€808 million), Portugal (-€243 million), and Hungary (-€84 million). The main source of savings came from the cardiovascular, central nervous system, and respiratory areas and from biosimilar entries. Oncology, immunology, and inflammation, in contrast, lead to additional expenditure. The model was particularly sensitive to the time to market of branded products, generic prices, generic penetration, and the distribution of biosimilars. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this forecast suggested a decrease in pharmaceutical expenditure in the studied period. The model was sensitive to pharmaceutical policy decisions.

Novel methodology for pharmaceutical expenditure forecast.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The value appreciation of new drugs across countries today features a disruption that is making the historical data that are used for forecasting pharmaceutical expenditure poorly reliable. Forecasting methods rarely addressed uncertainty. The objective of this project was to propose a methodology to perform pharmaceutical expenditure forecasting that integrates expected policy changes and uncertainty (developed for the European Commission as the 'EU Pharmaceutical expenditure forecast'; see http://ec.europa.eu/health/healthcare/key_documents/index_en.htm). METHODS: 1) Identification of all pharmaceuticals going off-patent and new branded medicinal products over a 5-year forecasting period in seven European Union (EU) Member States. 2) Development of a model to estimate direct and indirect impacts (based on health policies and clinical experts) on savings of generics and biosimilars. Inputs were originator sales value, patent expiry date, time to launch after marketing authorization, price discount, penetration rate, time to peak sales, and impact on brand price. 3) Development of a model for new drugs, which estimated sales progression in a competitive environment. Clinical expected benefits as well as commercial potential were assessed for each product by clinical experts. Inputs were development phase, marketing authorization dates, orphan condition, market size, and competitors. 4) Separate analysis of the budget impact of products going off-patent and new drugs according to several perspectives, distribution chains, and outcomes. 5) Addressing uncertainty surrounding estimations via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: This methodology has proven to be effective by 1) identifying the main parameters impacting the variations in pharmaceutical expenditure forecasting across countries: generics discounts and penetration, brand price after patent loss, reimbursement rate, the penetration of biosimilars and discount price, distribution chains, and the time to reach peak sales for new drugs; 2) estimating the statistical distribution of the budget impact; and 3) testing different pricing and reimbursement policy decisions on health expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology was independent of historical data and appeared to be highly flexible and adapted to test robustness and provide probabilistic analysis to support policy decision making.

Correlates of subjective quality of life in people with schizophrenia: findings from the EuroSC study.

Quality of life (QOL) is an important outcome for people with schizophrenia, but most previous studies of its correlates have had small sample sizes or explored a limited number of variables. We conducted an analysis of the baseline data from the European Schizophrenia Cohort (EuroSC) study, a naturalistic investigation of people with schizophrenia living in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (N = 1208). German participants had the highest subjective QOL. Country of residence, depression, accommodation status, and employment were the most important factors in explaining subjective QOL. Many correlates of subjective QOL in people with schizophrenia were similar to those in the general population. Many of the factors important in explaining subjective QOL in people with schizophrenia are not readily amenable to change. Differences in mental health service provision in the United Kingdom and Germany may in part explain variations in the QOL of people with schizophrenia resident there.

Burden on caregivers of people with schizophrenia: comparison between Germany and Britain.

BACKGROUND: Burden on the relatives of patients with schizophrenia may be influenced not only by patient and caregiver characteristics, but also by differences in mental health service provision. AIMS: To analyse whether family burden is affected by national differences in the provision of mental health services. METHOD: Patients with schizophrenia and their key relatives were examined in Germany (n=333) and Britain (n=170). Differences in family burden in both countries were analysed with regression models controlling for patient and caregiver characteristics. RESULTS: Family burden was associated with patients'symptoms, male gender, unemployment and marital status, as well as caregivers'coping abilities, patient contact and being a patient's parent. However, even when these attributes were controlled for, British caregivers reported more burden than German caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: National differences in family burden may be related to different healthcare systems in Germany and Britain. Support for patients with schizophrenia may be shifted from the professional to the informal healthcare sector more in Britain than in Germany.

The European Schizophrenia Cohort (EuroSC): a naturalistic prognostic and economic study.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia has a variety of clinical profiles, disabilities and outcomes requiring responsive management and the devotion of considerable resources. The primary objective of the European Schizophrenia Cohort (EuroSC) is to relate the types of treatment and methods of care to clinical outcome. Secondary objectives include the assessment of treatment needs in relation to outcome, the calculation of resource consumption associated with different methods of care, and the identification of prognostic factors. METHOD: EuroSC is a naturalistic follow-up of a cohort of people aged 18 to 64 years, suffering from schizophrenia and in contact with secondary psychiatric services. The study was done in nine European centres, in France (N = 288), Germany (N = 618), and Britain (N = 302). Participants were interviewed at 6-monthly intervals for a total of 2 years. This initial paper describes the methods used and presents clinical and social baseline data. RESULTS: The clinical and socio-demographic differences between patients from the different countries were small. However, patients from Britain were considerably more likely than their continental counterparts to have a history of homelessness, rooflessness or imprisonment, even when social and clinical differences between the samples were controlled. CONCLUSIONS: The samples were largely similar in clinical terms. Thus, the social differences between the samples seem likely to be due more to the societal context and may reflect relatively benign situations in the continental locations of our study.