No abstract

Background: There are potential conflicts between authorities and companies to fund new premium priced drugs especially where there are safety and/or budget concerns. Dabigatran, a new oral anticoagulant for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), exemplifies this issue. Whilst new effective treatments are needed, there are issues in the elderly with dabigatran due to variable drug concentrations, no known antidote and dependence on renal elimination. Published studies have shown dabigatran to be cost-effective but there are budget concerns given the prevalence of AF. There are also issues with potentially re-designing anticoagulant services. This has resulted in activities across countries to better manage its use.Objective: To (i) review authority activities in over 30 countries and regions, (ii) use the findings to develop new models to better manage the entry of new drugs, and (iii) review the implications for all major stakeholder groups.Methodology: Descriptive review and appraisal of activities regarding dabigatran and the development of guidance for groups through an iterative process.Results: There has been a plethora of activities among authorities to manage the prescribing of dabigatran including extensive pre-launch activities, risk sharing arrangements, prescribing restrictions, and monitoring of prescribing post-launch. Reimbursement has been denied in some countries due to concerns with its budget impact and/or excessive bleeding. Development of a new model and future guidance is proposed to better manage the entry of new drugs, centering on three pillars of pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities.Conclusion: Models for introducing new drugs are essential to optimize their prescribing especially where there are concerns. Without such models, new drugs may be withdrawn prematurely and/or struggle for funding.

Are new models needed to optimise the utilisation of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems?Godman B 1,2,3 , Malmström RE 4 , Diogene E 5 , Gray A 6 , Jayathissa S 7 , Timoney A 8 , Acurcio FA 9,10 , Alkan A 11 , Brzezinska A 12 , Bucsics A 13 , Campbell S 14,15 AbstractIntroduction: Medicines have made an appreciable contribution to improving health. However, even high income countries are struggling to fund new premium-priced medicines. This will grow necessitating the development of new models to optimise their use. Objective: Review case histories among health authorities to improve the utilisation and expenditure on new medicines. Subsequently, use these to develop exemplar models and outline their implications. Challenges and proposed models: A number of issues and challenges have been identified including the limited innovation level of new medicines alongside increasing requested prices for their reimbursement especially for oncology, orphan diseases, diabetes and HCV. Models centre on the three pillars of pre-, peri, and post-launch including critical drug evaluation and multi-criteria models for valuing medicines for orphan diseases alongside potentially capping pharmaceutical expenditure Discussion: Proposed models which involve all key stakeholder groups are critical for the sustainability of healthcare systems or enhancing universal access. The models should help stimulate debate as well as restore trust between key stakeholder groups.

Introduction: There are appreciable concerns among European health authorities with growing expenditure on cancer medicines and issues of sustainability. The enhanced use of low cost generics could help. Aims: Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively document current and future arrangements regarding the pricing of generic cancer medicines across Europe, and whether these are indication specific, as well as how this translates into actual prices to provide future direction. Methodology: Mixed method approach with qualitative research among senior health authority personnel and their advisers. Quantitative research via health authority databases to ascertain current prices for oral cancer medicines that had lost their patent and the influence of population size and economics on prices. Results: 25 European countries participated. Currently we see (a) variable approaches to the pricing of generic cancer medicines, which will continue; (b) no concerns with substitution for oral generic cancer medicines; (c) substantial price reductions versus originators for generic capecitabine (up to-93.1%), generic imatinib (up to-97.8%) and generic temozolomide (up to-80.7%). Prices for oncology medicines are not indication specific, and are not affected by population size although influenced by pricing approaches. There have also been price increases for some nonpatented cancer medicines following manufacturer changes although now stabilising. Conclusion: The considerable price reductions seen for some generics means health authorities should further encourage the use of generic oncology medicines when they become available to fund increased volumes and new valued cancer medicines. Countries are also starting to address price increases for generics following changes in the manufacturer

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.