IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i1d10.1007_s40258-016-0274-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Mondher Toumi

    (Aix-Marseille University)

  • Szymon Jarosławski

    (Aix-Marseille University)

  • Toyohiro Sawada

    (Astellas Pharma, Inc.)

  • Åsa Kornfeld

    (Creativ-Ceutical)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mondher Toumi & Szymon Jarosławski & Toyohiro Sawada & Åsa Kornfeld, 2017. "The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 5-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0274-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0274-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0274-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0274-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlson, Josh J. & Sullivan, Sean D. & Garrison, Louis P. & Neumann, Peter J. & Veenstra, David L., 2010. "Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 179-190, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    2. Bhardwaj, Ramesh, 2015. "Restraining High and Rising Cancer Drug Prices: Need for Accelerating R&D Productivity and Aligning Prices with Value," MPRA Paper 63405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova & James Buchanan & Heleen Vellekoop & Simone Huygens & Matthijs Versteegh & Maureen Rutten-van Mölken & László Szilberhorn & Tamás Zelei & Balázs Nagy & Sarah Wordsworth & Apos, 2022. "Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 501-524, July.
    4. Shuli Brammli-Greenberg & Ira Yaari & Elad Daniels & Ariella Adijes-Toren, 2021. "How Managed Entry Agreements can improve allocation in the public health system: a mechanism design approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 699-709, July.
    5. Evgeni Dvortsin & Judith Gout-Zwart & Ernst-Lodewijk Marie Eijssen & Jan van Brussel & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Drugs in Early versus Late Stages of Cancer; Review of the Literature and a Case Study in Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    6. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2022. "When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Bonny Parkinson & Rosalie Viney & Marion Haas & Stephen Goodall & Preeyaporn Srasuebkul & Sallie-Anne Pearson, 2016. "Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 1039-1050, October.
    8. Fernando Antonanzas & Carmelo Juárez-Castelló & Reyes Lorente & Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas, 2019. "The Use of Risk-Sharing Contracts in Healthcare: Theoretical and Empirical Assessments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(12), pages 1469-1483, December.
    9. Morgan, Steven G. & Thomson, Paige A. & Daw, Jamie R. & Friesen, Melissa K., 2013. "Canadian policy makers’ views on pharmaceutical reimbursement contracts involving confidential discounts from drug manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 248-254.
    10. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2012. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14021.
    11. Dunlop, William C.N. & Staufer, Alexandra & Levy, Pierre & Edwards, Guy J., 2018. "Innovative pharmaceutical pricing agreements in five European markets: A survey of stakeholder attitudes and experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(5), pages 528-532.
    12. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & Mackenzie Mills & Nicola Boekstein & Maxine Mackintosh & Panos Kanavos, 2017. "Towards High Quality Health Care and Sustainable Financing – the Role of Health Care Programmes," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s2), pages 46-59, March.
    13. Bengt Jönsson, 2011. "Relative effectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(2), pages 97-102, April.
    14. Alessandra Ferrario & Diāna Arāja & Tomasz Bochenek & Tarik Čatić & Dávid Dankó & Maria Dimitrova & Jurij Fürst & Ieva Greičiūtė-Kuprijanov & Iris Hoxha & Arianit Jakupi & Erki Laidmäe & Olga Löblová , 2017. "The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: Findings and Implications," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(12), pages 1271-1285, December.
    15. Taryn A. G. Quinlan & Brock Schroeder & Sue Kwon & Jane F. Barlow & Michael S. Sherman & Heather D. Anderson & Garth Wright & R. Brett McQueen, 2021. "Economic Impact of Coverage Expansion for Non-invasive Prenatal Testing Through a Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Agreement," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 449-458, September.
    16. Olina Efthymiadou, 2023. "Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1023-1031, September.
    17. Michael Drummond & Carlo Federici & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Aleksandra Torbica & Carl Rudolf Blankart & Oriana Ciani & Zoltán Kaló & Sándor Kovács & Werner Brouwer, 2022. "Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 179-194, September.
    18. Martin Emmert & Katharina Pohl-Dernick & Axel Wein & Frank Dörje & Susanne Merkel & Frank Boxberger & Gudrun Männlein & Robert Joost & Hans-Detlev Harich & Roland Thiemann & Christof Lamberti & Markus, 2013. "Palliative treatment of colorectal cancer in Germany: cost of care and quality of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(4), pages 629-638, August.
    19. Reza Mahjoub & Fredrik Ødegaard & Gregory S. Zaric, 2018. "Evaluation of a pharmaceutical risk‐sharing agreement when patients are screened for the probability of success," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, January.
    20. Neyt, Mattias & Gerkens, Sophie & San Miguel, Lorena & Vinck, Irm & Thiry, Nancy & Cleemput, Irina, 2020. "An evaluation of managed entry agreements in Belgium: A system with threats and (high) potential if properly applied," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(9), pages 959-964.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0274-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.