Background: The experience of Kymriah® and Yescarta® provides real-world examples of how health-care systems approach and manage the reimbursement of one-off, high-cost, cell, and gene therapies, and the decision uncertainty and affordability challenges they present. Objective: To provide an overview of the reimbursement schemes used for Kymriah® and Yescarta® in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (EU5) as per the final quarter of 2019; to identify challenges and derive learnings for future product launches. Methodology: Secondary research, complemented by primary research with key market access stakeholders. Findings: Kymriah® and Yescarta® have relatively uniform list prices across the EU5, and are reimbursed according to their marketing authorisations. In France and the UK, reimbursement is on the condition of collecting additional data (at the cohort level) and subject to future reassessments; elsewhere, rebates (Germany) or staged payments (Italy and Spain) are linked to individual patient outcomes. Conclusions: The experience of Kymriah® and Yescarta® shows an increased appetite for outcomes-based reimbursement (OBR) in the EU5, with notably novel approaches applied in Italy and Spain (outcomes-based staged payments). Thus, real-world evidence (RWE) has become an increasingly powerful lever for demonstrating the value of health benefits in the clinical setting.

ObjectiveThe aim of this research is to identify the pricing, reimbursement, and market access (P&R&MA) considerations most relevant to advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) in the Big5EU, and to inform their manufacturers about the key drivers for securing adoption at a commercially viable reimbursed price.MethodologyThe research was structured following three main steps: 1) Identifying the market access pathways relevant to ATMPs through secondary research; 2) Validating the secondary research findings and addressing any data gaps in primary research, by qualitative interviews with national, regional, and local-level payers and their clinical and economic advisors; 3) Collating of primary and secondary findings to compare results across countries.ResultsThe incremental clinical benefit forms the basis for all P&R&MA processes. Budget impact is a key consideration, regardless of geography. Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly applied; however, only the United Kingdom has a defined threshold that links the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) specifically and methodologically to the reimbursed price. Funding mechanisms to enable adoption of new and more expensive therapies exist in all countries, albeit to varying extents. Willingness to pay is typically higher in smaller patient populations, especially in populations with high disease burden. Outcomes modelling and risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) provide strategies to address the data gap and uncertainties often associated with trials in niche populations.ConclusionsThe high cost of ATMPs, coupled with the uncertainty at launch around their long-term claims, present challenges for their adoption at a commercially viable reimbursed price. Targeting populations of high disease burden and unmet needs may be advantageous, as the potential for improvement in clinical benefit is greater, as well as the potential for capitalising on healthcare cost offsets. Also, targeting small populations can also help reduce both payers’ budget impact concerns and the risk of reimbursement restrictions being imposed.

Background: Cell and gene therapies have the potential to provide therapeutic breakthroughs, but the high costs of researching, developing, manufacturing and delivering them translate into prices that may challenge healthcare budgets. Various measures exist that aim to address the affordability challenge, including reducing price, limiting patient numbers and/or linking remuneration to product performance.Objective: To explore how the net budget impact test recently introduced in England can affect patient access to high-value, one-off cell and gene therapies, and how managed entry agreements can improve access.Methods: We use a hypothetical example where a new high-value, one-off therapy launches in an indication where it displaces a relatively low cost chronic treatment. We calculate the number of patients that can be treated without exceeding the £20 million net budget impact threshold, and compare results for scenarios where a full upfront payment is used, and where annuity-based payments are used.Results: Charging a full upfront payment at the time of treatment can lead to suboptimal patient access.Conclusion: Annuity-based payments in combination with an outcomes-based remuneration scheme reduce consequences of decision uncertainty and can increase patient access, without exceeding the net budget impact test.