Advertisement

Impact of health technology assessment and managed entry schemes on reimbursement decisions of centrally authorised medicinal products in Belgium

  • Philippe Van WilderEmail author
  • Magali Pirson
  • Alain Dupont
Pharmacoeconomics
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Centrally authorised medicinal products (CAMPs) in the European Union may offer added therapeutic value (ATV) but may be linked to high prices and limited efficiency. Health technology assessment (HTA) and managed entry schemes (MES) may facilitate the reimbursement decision by providing reliable estimates of the medicinal product’s value and costs and by controlling the remaining uncertainty, respectively. We investigated the impact of HTA criteria and the initiation of a MES on the reimbursement decision of CAMPs in Belgium.

Methods

We selected all reimbursement submissions for new centrally authorised medicinal products in the 2010–2015 period. We retrieved data relating to the reimbursement decision, the HTA outcome and the use of a managed entry scheme.

Results

The decision of the Minister was available for 115 dossiers, covering 36 (31.3%) orphan medicinal products (OMPs) and 79 ATV products. A MES was used in 41 submissions. A positive reimbursement decision was obtained in 65% of cases. The significant factors affecting the reimbursement decision were the approval of ATV, the medical need if it was considered ‘important or major’ and the use of a managed entry scheme. Price, budget impact and efficiency had no significant impact.

Conclusions

Added therapeutic value and high medical need increase the odds for a positive reimbursement decision. No impact could be demonstrated of the cost-related HTA criteria. Cost elements may be biased by the use of a confidential MES. Without a MES, only 53% of the centrally authorised medicinal products, including OMPs, are reimbursed in Belgium.

Keywords

Access HTA Managed entry schemes Medicinal products Innovation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Lieven Annemans (PhD, Ghent University) and Alexander Barbary (M Medicine, Ghent University) contributed to the data analysis. We are grateful to the staff of the Pharmaceutical Policy Department of the NIHDI for providing the relevant administrative data of the medicinal products.

Contributions of authors statement

Philippe Van Wilder and Alain Dupont conceived the study, analysed the data and wrote the paper. Magali Pirson analysed the data and reviewed the paper.

Supplementary material

228_2019_2665_MOESM1_ESM.docx (50 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 50 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    The Council of the European Communities (1989) Directive 89/105/EEC, OJ L40:65–71Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    High Level Pharmaceutical forum. Conclusions and recommendations. Accessed via https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4fddf639-47cc-4f90-9964-142757d2515a. Acessed 30 Oct 2018
  3. 3.
    The European Parliament and the European Council (2011) Dir. 2011/24/EU. OJ L88:45-65Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    EUnetHTA. Joint Action 3 2016–20. Accessed via https://www.eunethta.eu/ja3-archive/. Acessed 30 Oct 2018
  5. 5.
    Royal Decree of December 21st (2001) Articles 81 to 85Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Royal Decree of December 21st (2001) Accessed via https://www.inami.fgov.be/SiteCollectionDocuments/specialites_pharmaceutiques_AR_20011221.pdf. Acessed 30 Oct 2018
  7. 7.
    European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Core template. Accessed via: https://www.eunethta.eu/hta-core-model/
  8. 8.
    Van Wilder P, Dupont A (2008) Introducing evidence-based medicine in reimbursement procedures: does it affect the outcome? Value Health 11(4):784–787 Epub 2008/01/09CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD index. Accessed via https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/?code=L&showdescription=yes. Acessed 30 Oct 2018
  10. 10.
    Van Wilder P et al (2009) Identifying and rewarding pharmaceutical innovation: application in a EU member state. Drug Inform J 44:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Medicines Agency. Annual reports 2010 to 2015. Accessed via: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/document_listing/document_listing_000208.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058002933a. Acessed 30 Oct 2018
  12. 12.
    European Commission (2000) Regulation (EC) no 847/2000. OJ L103:5–8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bouslouk M (2016) G-BA benefit assessment of new orphan drugs in Germany: the first five years. Exp Opin Orphan Drugs 4(5):453–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Institute for Health and Disease Insurance (NIHDI). MORSE report 2014. Accessed via http://www.inami.fgov.be/SiteCollectionDocuments/rapport-morse-2014.pdf. Acessed 5 Nov 2018
  15. 15.
    Picavet E et al (2013) Do ultra-orphan medicinal products warrant ultra-high prices? A review. Orphan Drugs: Res Rev 3:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luzzatto L, Hollak CEM, Cox TM, Schieppati A, Licht C, Kääriäinen H, Merlini G, Schaefer F, Simoens S, Pani L, Garattini S, Remuzzi G (2015) Rare diseases and effective treatments: are we delivering? Lancet 385:750–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mc Conaghie A. Glybera, the most expensive drug in the world, to be withdrawn after commercial flop. Available via: https://pharmaphorum.com/news/glybera-expensive-drug-world-withdrawn-commercial-flop/. Acessed 5 Nov 2018
  18. 18.
    McCabe C, Bergmann L, Bosanquet N, Ellis M, Enzmann H, von Euler M, Jönsson B, Kallen KJ, Newling D, Nüssler V, Paschen B, de Wilde R, Wilking N, Teale C, Zwierzina H, Biotherapy Development Association (2009) Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: a current, multidisciplinary perspective. Ann Oncol 20:403–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cleemput I, Devriese S, Christiaens W, Kohn L (2016) Multi-criteria decision analysis for the appraisal of medical needs: a pilot study. Health Services Research (HSR) Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). KCE Reports 272. D/2016/10.273/68Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    NIHDI. Search engine for reimbursable medicinal products. Accessed via http://ondpanon.riziv.fgov.be/SSPWebApplicationPublic/fr/Public/ProductSearch. Acessed 5 Nov 2018
  21. 21.
    Dupont AG, Van Wilder PB (2011) Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 71(4):488–496CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haute Autorité de Santé. Annual reports from 2005 till 2016. Accessed via https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_1070314/fr/historique-des-rapports-annuels-d-activite. Acessed 5 Nov 2018
  23. 23.
    Godman B et al (2014) Are new models needed to optimize the utilization of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems? Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 8(1):77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E, Simoens S (2013) Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis 8:198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Royal Decree of February 1st (2018) Articles 112 till 115Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pauwels K et al (2017) Managed Entry Agreements for oncology drugs: lessons from the European experience to inform the future. Front PharmacolGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre in Health Economy, Management of Care Institutions and Nursing Sciences, Public Health SchoolUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of clinical pharmacology and pharmacotherapyVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations