IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i2d10.1007_s40273-024-01445-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value-Based Healthcare in Practice: IDEATE, a Collaboration to Design and Test an Outcomes-Based Agreement for a Medicine in Wales

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica R. Burton

    (Pfizer Ltd
    University College London)

  • Kate Halsby

    (Pfizer Ltd)

  • Graciela Sáinz Fuente

    (Pfizer Ltd)

  • Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard

    (Health Analytics, Lane Clark and Peacock LLP)

  • Rebecca Sloan

    (Health Analytics, Lane Clark and Peacock LLP)

  • Thomas Porter

    (Health Analytics, Lane Clark and Peacock LLP)

  • Gareth John

    (Digital Health and Care Wales)

  • Andrew Warburton

    (Digital Health and Care Wales)

  • Jennifer Selby

    (Digital Health and Care Wales)

  • Gail Povey

    (Swansea Bay University Health Board)

  • Ruhe Chowdhury

    (Pfizer Ltd)

  • Catherine Bale

    (Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board)

  • Mark Davies

    (Swansea University Health Board)

  • Emma Clifton-Brown

    (Pfizer Ltd)

  • Hamish Laing

    (Swansea University)

Abstract

Objective To develop a sustainable, scalable methodology for the design of outcome-based agreements (OBAs) that works on the ground and dynamically overcomes historical challenges. Methods Project IDEATE co-created solutions to known (and emergent) challenges via iterative workshops and real-world data analysis to develop and refine a hypothetical model for an OBA in a trusted research environment. A cross-disciplinary collaboration between National Health Service (NHS) Wales, industry and academia was developed. Data were collected from Welsh national datasets and used to construct a novel linked dataset. OBA scenarios, with different contract parameters, were analysed to assess impact on the proportion of contract payment due and the volatility of payments. Results An approved, in market, locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer treatment was selected as the test case. The total number of patients in the treatment cohort (2017–2020) was n = 99, and 286 in the control cohort (2014–2016). The final outcome variables selected were: (1) 1-year survival,( 2) intolerance to treatment (deferral), and (3) the total days disrupted by care. The primary scenario included all three outcomes measured at the population level and used a linear payment model. Volatility analyses demonstrated contract parameters can dramatically alter the contract output with greatest risk from a single, binary outcome contract design. Conclusions The design of an OBA is a complex process that requires a multi-disciplinary approach. By assessing solutions to data, outcomes and contracting challenges, IDEATE provides a strong foundation for future success of OBAs in the UK. Plain Language Summary Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) are a way to pay for medicines if they help patient health in a specific way over time. These agreements can make it faster for people to get new medicines, but they also have challenges, like needing a lot of time and effort to manage them. A team from the NHS Wales, life sciences, and Swansea University created Project IDEATE to find a better way to design OBAs and solve some of these problems. Welsh datasets were used to create a new breast cancer dataset to test different OBAs and see how payments would change. A breast cancer treatment was used for the project. The project had 99 patients who got the medicine (2017–2020) and 286 patients who had breast cancer but did not get the medicine (2014–2016). Three health outcomes were measured: (1) living for one year after treatment, (2) patients needing to stop the medicine, and (3) days spent in care. The main OBA option we tested used all three health outcomes; the more the outcomes improved, the more the payments could go up until they hit the highest amount agreed. The analysis showed that the way an OBA is designed can make a big difference in how stable or risky it is, especially if one of the health outcomes has only two options. Project IDEATE showed that making an OBA can be hard, but when people from different fields work together, they can overcome many challenges and succeed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica R. Burton & Kate Halsby & Graciela Sáinz Fuente & Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard & Rebecca Sloan & Thomas Porter & Gareth John & Andrew Warburton & Jennifer Selby & Gail Povey & Ruhe Chowdhury & Ca, 2025. "Value-Based Healthcare in Practice: IDEATE, a Collaboration to Design and Test an Outcomes-Based Agreement for a Medicine in Wales," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 191-207, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01445-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0
    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/s40273-024-01445-0?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. Caridad Pontes & Corinne Zara & Josep Torrent-Farnell & Merce Obach & Cristina Nadal & Patricia Vella-Bonanno & Michael Ermisch & Steven Simoens & Renata Curi Hauegen & Jolanta Gulbinovic & Angela Tim, 2020. "Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 5-16, February.
    2. Yankier Pijeira Perez & Dyfrig A. Hughes, 2024. "Evidence Following Conditional NICE Technology Appraisal Recommendations: A Critical Analysis of Methods, Quality and Risk of Bias," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1373-1394, December.
    3. Carolina Zampirolli Dias & Brian Godman & Ludmila Peres Gargano & Pâmela Santos Azevedo & Marina Morgado Garcia & Maurílio Souza Cazarim & Laís Lessa Neiva Pantuzza & Nelio Gomes Ribeiro-Junior & Andr, 2020. "Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1165-1185, November.
    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. Wânia Cristina Silva & Brian Godman & Francisco Acúrcio & Mariângela Leal Cherchiglia & Antony Martin & Konrad Maruszczyk & Jans Bastos Izidoro & Marcos André Portella & Agner Pereira Lana & Orozimbo , 2021. "The Budget Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies Used to Treat Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Minas Gerais, Brazil," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 557-577, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Nasuh C. Buyukkaramikli & Peter Wigfield & Men Thi Hoang, 2021. "A MEA is a MEA is a MEA? Sequential decision making and the impact of different managed entry agreements at the manufacturer and payer level, using a case study for an oncology drug in England," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 51-73, February.
    4. Carolina Zampirolli Dias & Brian Godman & Ludmila Peres Gargano & Pâmela Santos Azevedo & Marina Morgado Garcia & Maurílio Souza Cazarim & Laís Lessa Neiva Pantuzza & Nelio Gomes Ribeiro-Junior & Andr, 2020. "Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1165-1185, November.
    5. James F. O’Mahony, 2021. "Revision of Ireland’s Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: New State-Industry Drug Pricing Deal Should Adequately Reflect Opportunity Costs," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 339-348, September.

    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:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01445-0. 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.