Prospects of Risk-Sharing Agreements for Innovative Therapies in a Context of Deficit Spending in Bulgaria

Frontiers in Public Health

Volumn 3, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Iskrov, Georgi ^a   Stefanov, Rumen ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF PLOVDIV   (Bulgaria)

Author keywords

Bulgaria; deficit spending; drug budget; evidence; health technology assessment; innovative therapies; risk sharing; uncertainty

Indexed keywords

EID: 84962000305     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22962565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00064     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Eyadhy AA, Razack S. The ethics of using innovative therapies in the care of children. Paediatr Child Health (2008) 13(3):181–4.19252694
2. 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):80–6.10.2478/folmed-2013-003224712287
3. National Health Insurance Fund’s Budget Act of 2011. With effect from January 1, 2011. Prom. State Gazette 98 of December 14, 2010.
4. National Health Insurance Fund’s Budget Act of 2012. With effect from January 1, 2012. Prom. State Gazette 99 of December 16, 2011. Amend. State Gazette 53 of July 13, 2012.
5. National Health Insurance Fund’s Budget Act of 2013. With effect from January 1, 2013. Prom. State Gazette 101 of December 18, 2012. Amend. State Gazette 106 of December 10, 2013.
6. National Health Insurance Fund’s Budget Act of 2014. With effect from January 1, 2014. Prom. State Gazette 106 of December 10, 2013. Amend. and supplemented. State Gazette 67 of August 12, 2014. Amend. and supplemented. State Gazette 98 of November 28, 2014.
7. National Health Insurance Fund. Quarter Financial Reports (2011–2014). Available from: www.nhif.bg
8. Iskrov G, Stefanov R., A Comprehensive Analysis of Access to Orphan Drugs in Bulgaria, Budget Impact of Medicinal Therapies for Rare Diseases and Good Practices for Rare Disease Patient Access to Orphan Drugs in the EU has been Published. Plovdiv: Bulgarian Association for Promotion of Education and Science (2014).
9. Dupont AG, Van Wilder PB. Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol (2011) 71(4):488–96.10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03877.x21395641
10. Iskrov G, Stefanov R. Post-marketing access to orphan drugs: a critical analysis of health technology assessment and reimbursement decision-making considerations. Orphan Drugs Res Rev (2014) 4:1–9.10.2147/ODRR.S43409
11. Niezen MG, de Bont A, Busschbach JJ, Cohen JP, Stolk EA. Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care (2009) 25(1):49–55.10.1017/S026646230909007219126251
12. Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy (2010) 96(3):179–90.10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.02.00520226559
13. Garrison LP, Jr Towse A, Briggs A, de Pouvourville G, Grueger J, Mohr PE, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health (2013) 16(5):703–19.10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.01123947963
14. Adamski J, Godman B, Ofierska-Sujkowska G, Osinska B, Herholz H, Wendykowska K, et al. Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. BMC Health Serv Res (2010) 10:153.10.1186/1472-6963-10-15320529296
15. Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E, et al. 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 (2013) 8:198.10.1186/1750-1172-8-19824365263
16. Chabot I, Rocchi A. Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res (2014) 6:357–67.10.2147/CEOR.S6630925075196
17. Rocchi A, Menon D, Verma S, Miller E. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. Value Health (2008) 11(4):771–83.10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00298.x18179658
18. Jakovljevic MB, Djordjevic N, Jurisevic M, Jankovic S. Evolution of the Serbian pharmaceutical market alongside socioeconomic transition. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res (2015) 16:1–10.10.1586/14737167.2015.100304425592856
19. Edlin R, Hall P, Wallner K, McCabe C. Sharing risk between payer and provider by leasing health technologies: an affordable and effective reimbursement strategy for innovative technologies? Value Health (2014) 17(4):438–44.10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.01024969005
20. Ruof J, Schwartz FW, Schulenburg JM, Dintsios CM. Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur J Health Econ (2014) 15(6):577–89.10.1007/s10198-013-0495-y23771769
21. Wlodarczyk J, Reid CM, Pater G. Funding linked to ongoing research: impact of the Bosentan patient registry on pricing in Australia. Value Health (2011) 14(6):961–3.10.1016/j.jval.2011.02.117721914519