The future of oncology policy

Gill, Jennifer; Mills, Mackenzie; Wharton, George A.; Kanavos, Panos

doi:10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100352

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature review identified 77 hits, excluding duplications. After review of abstract, and full paper when in doubt, 16 references were included (seven references from Web of Science and nine references from the grey literature) (Pearson et al, 2016;Campbell, 2017;Baker et al, 2018;Cookson, 2019;Lawlor et al, 2021;Pereira et al, 2021;Creating;Adida, 2022;Michaeli et al, 2022a;Michaeli et al, 2022b;Gill et al, 2022;Ha et al, 2022;Pani et al, 2022;Preckler and Espin, 2022;Vokinger and Kesselheim, 2022;Zhang et al, 2022). This section summarises the main messages from the literature review, focusing on MIP typologies, (dis)advantages and implementation challenges.…”

Section: Key Findings From Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples include Germany which negotiates the price for each new indication and those negotiations are then reflected in a final common price, and France where individual negotiations for each indication are scored according to the therapeutic benefit and the public price reflects the weighting of the indication by expected volume. However, no consensus exists on the best method of determining the weighted price (Gill et al, 2022). Also, under this blended price model, the prescriber and budget holder face an average price and not the price that is relevant for the indication for which they plan to use the product (Towse et al, 2018).…”

Section: Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Belgian stakeholders argued that the initial price should be set lower than the volume-and value-weighted average price across indications as, in their opinion, value at launch can sometimes be difficult to estimate. The implementation of this MIP model requires that a legal Pearson et al, (2016) ;Campbell, (2017); Baker et al, (2018) ;Cookson, (2019); Lawlor et al, (2021); Pereira et al, (2021) ;Adida, (2022); Michaeli et al, (2022a); Michaeli et al, (2022b); Gill et al, (2022); Ha et al, (2022); Pani et al, (2022); Preckler and Espin, (2022).…”

Section: Mip Model Preferred By Belgian Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, it was thought that MIP model 5 is less attractive for pharmaceutical industry and might lead to fewer market introductions, except for medicines with high uncertainty. [Michaeli et al, (2022a); Lawlor et al, (2021); Michaeli et al, (2022b); Preckler and Espin, (2022); Adida, (2022); Baker et al, (2018) ;Campbell, (2017) ;Cookson, (2019); Gill et al, (2022); Ha et al, (2022); Pani et al, (2022); Pearson et al, (2016); Pereira et al, (2021); Creating].…”

Section: Disadvantage Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disadvantages of MIP modelsPearson et al, (2016);Lawlor et al, (2021);Pereira et al, (2021); Adida, (2022);Michaeli et al, (2022a);Michaeli et al, (2022b);Gill et al, (2022);Ha et al, (2022);Pani et al, (2022);Preckler and Espin, (2022).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Not one, but many: developing a multi-indication pricing model for medicines in Belgium

Maes,

Kok,

De Torck

et al. 2023

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Back ground: Current pricing and reimbursement models that focus on one indication at a time are not suited to address the market access of multi-indication medicines. Therefore, the aim of this study is to co-create with Belgian stakeholders a multi-indication pricing model and procedural pathway, to identify conditions for implementation, and to illustrate the multi-indication pricing model with a case study.Methods: Different multi-indication pricing models were identified from the literature, case studies and pilots in other countries. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 representatives from the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance, insurance funds, clinicians, patients, the policy cell of the Minister of Health, pharmaceutical industry and academia. These provided insight in the opinions of stakeholders about possible multi-indication pricing models and their feasibility in the Belgian context. Agreement on the preferred multi-indication pricing model and procedural pathway was reached in a multi-stakeholder round table.Results: The international review generated four main multi-indication pricing models that vary in terms of whether a uniform price or differential prices are applied, whether prices are adjusted for the volume and/or value of the medicine in each indication, and whether a proactive or retroactive dynamic pricing approach is used. However, Belgian stakeholders preferred a fifth model, which sets a single price as the volume- and value-weighted average price across all indications at launch. Over time, the price is adapted based on volume and value of the medicine in real-life practice for each indication. To implement this model, a legal framework, horizon scanning and early dialogue, data infrastructure, an evidence plan for the medicine, technical expertise and governance model need to be developed.Conclusion: Although the multi-indication pricing model preferred by Belgian stakeholders raises the administrative burden, it allows for the price of a medicine to vary during the lifecycle based on its initial and real-life performance in multiple indications.

show abstract