Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Kolasa, Katarzyna ^a   Zwolinski, Krzysztof M ^b   Kalo, Zoltan ^c   Hermanowski, Tomasz ^b  

^a NICOLAUS COPERNICUS UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^c EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGALSIDASE BETA; AMBRISENTAN; AZACITIDINE; BETAINE; BOSENTAN; DASATINIB; IDURONATE 2 SULFATASE; ILOPROST; IMATINIB; LENALIDOMIDE; MIGLUSTAT; NELARABINE; NILOTINIB; ORPHAN DRUG; PEGVISOMANT; RECOMBINANT SOMATOMEDIN C; ROMIPLOSTIM; SAPROPTERIN; SILDENAFIL; SORAFENIB; TEMSIROLIMUS; TRABECTEDIN;

ACROMEGALY; ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA; ACUTE MYELOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA; ARTICLE; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; DATA BASE; DERMATOFIBROSARCOMA PROTUBERANS; DRUG INDICATION; FABRY DISEASE; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HOMOCYSTINURIA; HUMAN; HUNTER SYNDROME; HYPERPHENYLALANINEMIA; IDIOPATHIC THROMBOCYTOPENIC PURPURA; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; LARON SYNDROME; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; METHODOLOGY; MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME; MYELOPROLIFERATIVE DISORDER; NIEMANN PICK DISEASE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POLAND; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRICING AND REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS; PUBLICATION; PULMONARY HYPERTENSION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DRUG MANUFACTURE; ECONOMICS;

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; POLAND; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84960887396     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17501172     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-016-0388-0     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. EUnetHTA. http://www.eunethta.eu/faq/Category%201-0#t287n73. Accessed November 2015.
2. Culyer T. Where are the Limits of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Health Technology Assessment? J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97 Suppl 5:S1-2.
3. Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: A primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229-48.
4. Devlin NJ, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA, methods and processes. Office of Health Economics. 2011; 1-60. ISBN: 978-1-899040-98-8. https://www.ohe.org/publications/incorporating-multiple-criteria-hta-methods-and-processes. Access 6 March 2016.
5. Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. In: Series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Vol. 78. New York, USA: Springer Science + Business Media; 2005.
6. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). http://www.ispor.org/taskforces/multi-criteria-decision-analysis-grp.asp.
7. COMP report to the commission in relation to article 10 of regulation 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products, EMEA/35218/2005. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Report/2010/04/WC500089638.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
8. Picavet E, Morel T, Cassiman D, Simoens S. Shining a light in the black box of orphan drug pricing. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:62.
9. EvaluatePharma Orphan drug report 2014. http://info.evaluategroup.com/rs/evaluatepharmaltd/images/2014OD.pdf. Accessed March 2015.
10. International rare diseases research consortium (IRDiRC). http://www.irdirc.org/the-european-commission-publishes-its-implementation-report-on-rare-diseases-europes-challenges-and-council-recommendations/. Accessed November 2015.
11. EURORDIS Rare Diseases Europe. http://www.eurordis.org/content/moca. Accessed November 2015.
12. European Commission. Transparent value framework (Platform on access to medicines in Europe - Working Group on Mechanism of coordinated access to orphan medicinal products), 19.11.2014. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7631?locale=en. Accessed November 2015.
13. Kolasa K. Are pricing and reimbursement decision-making criteria aligned with public preferences regarding allocation principles in the Polish healthcare sector? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(5):751-62.
14. Kolasa K, Dohnalik J, Borek E, Siemiatkowski M, Scibiorski C. The paradox of public participation in the healthcare in Poland - what citizens want, and what they think. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):159-65.
15. Kolasa K, Annemans L, Lees M. Assessment of the attitudes of the general public towards supplementary criteria to be used in P&R decision making process in Poland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):443-9.
16. OECD Health Statistic 2014, Poland. http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-POLAND-2014.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
17. Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs. An Int J Public Health. 2014;1(3):83-97.
18. The Agency for Health Technology Assessment (Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych, AOTM). www.aotm.gov.pl. Accessed November 2015.
19. Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
20. Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S. Orphan drugs, orphan diseases. The first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:1009-24.
21. Orphanet Report Series - Lists of medicinal products for rare diseases in Europe. 2014. page 41, classification by date of MA in descending order. http://www.orpha.net/orphacom/cahiers/docs/GB/list-of-orphan-drugs-in-europe.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
22. Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16:1163-9.
23. Dupont AG, Van Wilder PB. Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71(4):488-96.
24. Herper M. The world's most expensive drugs. Forbes, 2010. http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/expensive-drugs-cost-business-healthcare-rare-diseases.html. Accessed January 2015.
25. Sullivan SD. The promise of specialty pharmaceuticals: Are they worth the price? J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(suppl S):S3-6.
26. Hyry HI, Stern AD, Cox TM, Roos JCP. Limits on use of health economic assessments for rare diseases. Q J Med. 2014;107(3):241-5.
27. Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18:951-76.
28. Mentzakis M, Stefanowska P, Hurley J. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6:405-33.
29. Ministry of Health Republic of Poland. http://www.mz.gov.pl/aktualnosci/swiatowy-dzien-chorob-rzadkich. Accessed June 2014.
30. 2012 EUCERD report on the state of the art of rare disease activities in Italy. Available from: http://www.eucerd.eu/?post-type=document&p=1494. Accessed June 2014.
31. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim Methods of the Highly Specialised Technologies Programme, May 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-highly-specialised-technologies-guidance/Highly-Specialised-Technologies-Interim-methods-and-process-statements.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
32. The Scottish Government, Medicines fund, 2013. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releases/2013/01/medicines-fund14012013. Accessed November 2014.
33. The Australian Government, Department of Health. Life Saving Drugs Program Criteria and Conditions, April 2013. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/lsdp-criteria. Accessed January 2015.
34. Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, Simoens S. Paying for the Orphan drug System: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease treatments? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:74.
35. McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ. 2005;331(7523):1016-9.
36. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Appraising Orphan Drugs, DRAFT v3. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhealth/782/782vw.pdf. Accessed October 2014.
37. Drummond MF. Challenges in the economic evaluation of orphan drugs, Pharmaceutical policy. Eurohealth. 2007;14(2):16-7.
38. Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):36-42.
39. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision-making: evidences from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:1103-9.
40. Simoens S. Health technologies for rare diseases: does conventional HTA still apply? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):315-7.
41. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim, process and methods of the highly specialized technologies programme. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/niceguidance/nice-highly-specialised-technologies-guidance. Accessed June 2014.
42. Sussex J, Rollet PM, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. Multi-criteria decision analysis to value orphan medicines. London: Office of Health Economics; 2013.
43. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence NICE Citizens council report - report 4: Ultra orphan drugs. London, November 2004. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/Get-involved/Citizens-Council/Reports/CCReport04UltraOrphanDrugs.pdf. Accessed October 2014.
44. Simoens S. Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:42.
45. Largent EA, Pearson SD. Which orphans will find a home? The rule of rescue in resource allocation for rare diseases. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012; 42(1):27-34.
46. Simoens S, Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Morel T. Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Orphan Drugs. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:1-3.
47. Iskrov GG, Raycheva RD, Stefanov RS. Insight into reimbursement decision-making criteria in Bulgaria: implications for orphan drugs. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2013;55(3-4):80-6.
48. Rosenberg-Yunger ZRS, Daar AS, Thorsteinsdottir H, Martin DK. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparision. Health Policy. 2011;100:25-34.
49. Winquist E, Coyle D, Clarke JTR, Evans GA, Seager C, Chan W. Application of a policy framework for the public funding of drugs for rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29 Suppl 3:S774-9.
50. Hughes D. Rationing of drugs for rare diseases. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):315-6.
51. Sheehan M. Orphan drugs and the NHS: fairness in health care entails more than cost effectiveness. BMJ. 2005;331(7525):1144-5.
52. Stolk P, Willemen MJ, Leufkens HG. Rare essentials: drugs for rare diseases as essential medicines. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(9):745-51.
53. Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do They deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98(11):829-36.