Reimbursed price of orphan drugs: Current strategies and potential improvements

Public Health Genomics

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 1-8

  Mincarone, Pierpaolo ^a   Leo, Carlo Giacomo ^b,c   Sabina, Saverio ^b   Sarriá Santamera, Antonio ^d,e   Taruscio, Domenica ^f   Serrano Aguilar, Pedro Guillermo ^e,g   Kanavos, Panos ^h  

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL PHYSIOLOGY   (Italy)

^c TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d INSTITUTO DE SALUD CARLOS III   (Spain)

^e Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC)   (Spain)

^f National Health Institute   (Italy)

^g Evaluation Unit of the Canary Islands Health Service (SESCS)   (Spain)

^h LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Access to healthcare; Early dialog; Orphan drugs; Pricing; Technology assessment, biomedical MeSH

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG;

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; DRUG MANUFACTURE; ECONOMICS; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RARE DISEASE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; RARE DISEASES; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS;

EID: 85017121254     PISSN: 16624246     EISSN: 16628063     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000464100     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. OECD (2015): Health at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health-glance-2015-en.
2. Pharmaceutical Forum-Pricing and Reimbursement Working Group: Improving access to orphan medicines for all affected EU citizens. Final conclusions and recommendations of the pharmaceutical forum. 2014. Accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7586/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf
3. Vozikis A, Cooper DN, Mitropoulou C, Kambouris ME, Brand A, Dolzan V, Fortina P, Innocenti F, Lee MT, Leyens L, Macek M Jr, Al-Mulla F, Prainsack B, Squassina A, Taruscio D, van Schaik RH, Vayena E, Williams MS, Patrinos GP. Test pricing and reimbursement in genomic medicine: towards a general strategy. Public Health Genomics 2016; 19: 352-363.
4. Murakami M, Narukawa M. Matched analysis on orphan drug designations and approvals: cross regional analysis in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. Drug Discov Today 2016; 21: 544-549.
5. European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases (EUCERD): EUCERD recommendation for a CAVOMP information flow. Accessible at http://www.eucerd.eu/?post-type=document&p=1446.
6. Gammie T, Lu CY, Babar ZU. Access to orphan drugs: a comprehensive review of legislations, regulations and policies in 35 countries. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0140002.
7. EvaluatePharma: Orphan drug report 2015. Accessible at www.evaluategroup.com/Orphandrug2015.
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. Schey C, Milanova T, Hutchings A. Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010-2020. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2011; 6: 62.
10. Messori A, Cicchetti A, Patregani L. Orphan drugs. Relating price determination to disease prevalence. BMJ 2010; 341: c4615.
11. Tambuyzer E. Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: 921-929.
12. Simoens S. Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2011; 6: 42.
13. European Commission: Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000, L 18/1. Accessible at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: L: 2000: 018: 0001: 0005: en: PDF
14. US FDA: The orphan drug regulations. Final rule, 78 FR 35117 21 CFR Part 316 2013, pp 35117-35132.
15. Orphanet: Worldwide comparison of regulation 2001. Accessible at http://www.orpha. net/consor4.01/www/cgi-bin/Education-EducationTools. php?lng=EN&stapage=ST-EDUCATION-EDUCATION-ABOUTORPHANDRUGS-COMPARISON (accessed June 17, 2014
16. Godman B, Malmström RE, Diogene E, Gray A, Jayathissa S, Timoney A, Acurcio F, Alkan A, Brzezinska A, Bucsics A, Campbell SM, Czeczot J, de Bruyn W, Eriksson I, Yusof FA, Finlayson AE, Fürst J, Garuoliene K, Guerra Júnior A, Gulbinovič J, Jan S, Joppi R, Kalaba M, Magnisson E, McCullagh L, Miikkulainen K, Ofierska-Sujkowska G, Pedersen HB, Selke G, Sermet C, Spillane S, Supian A, Truter I, Vlahović-Palčevski V, Vien LE, Vural EH, Wale J, Wladysiuk M, Zeng W, Gustafsson LL. Are new models needed to optimize the utilization of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems?. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2015; 8: 77-94.
17. WHO Executive Board: 121st session. Health technologies. Report by secretariat. EB121/11 2007. Accessible at http://apps.who.int/gb/archive/pdf-files/EB121/B121-11-en.pdf
18. Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs 2014; 1: 83-97.
19. Lampe K, Mäkelä M, Garrido MV, Anttila H, Autti-Rämö I, Hicks NJ, Hofmann B, Koivisto J, Kunz R, Kärki P, Malmivaara A, Meiesaar K, Reiman-Möttönen P, Norderhaug I, Pasternack I, Ruano-Ravina A, Räsänen P, Saalasti-Koskinen U, Saarni SI, Walin L, Kristensen FB; European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA): The HTA core model: a novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(suppl 2): 9-20.
20. Griggs RC, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Kaye E, Krischer J, Nguyen T, Paulus K, Merkel PA; Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network: Clinical research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab 2009; 96: 20-26.
21. Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives. Value Health 2013; 16(1 suppl): S7-S13.
22. Rosenberg-Yunger ZRS, Daar AS, Thorsteinsdóttir H, Martin DK. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison. Health Policy 2011; 100: 25-34.
23. Westermark K, Tsigkos S, Llinares J. Is it time to clarify orphan drug policies?. Yes, for equity s sake. BMJ 2010; 341: c4777.
24. Niezen MGH, 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: 49-55.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Simoens S. Health technologies for rare diseases: does conventional HTA still apply?. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14: 315-317.
28. Zelei T, Molnár MJ, Szegedi M, Kaló Z. Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2016; 11: 72.
29. Drummond M, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ 2014; 15: 335-340.
30. Kolasa K, Zwolinski KM, Kalo Z, Hermanowski T. Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2016; 11: 23.
31. Iskrov G, Miteva-Katrandzhieva T, Stefanov R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for assessment and appraisal of orphan drugs. Front Public Health 2016; 4: 214.
32. Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 33: 255-269.
33. 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: 1163-1169.
34. Kanavos P, Nicod E. What is wrong with orphan drug policies?. Suggestions for ways forward. Value Health 2012; 15: 1182-1184.
35. O Sullivan BP, Orenstein DM, Milla CE. Pricing for orphan drugs: will the market bear what society cannot?. JAMA 2013; 310: 1343-1344.
36. Cookson R, Dolan P. Principles of justice in health care rationing. J Med Ethics 2000; 26: 323-329.
37. McKie J, Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 2407-2419.
38. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Interim process and methods of the Highly Specialised Technologies Programme. Accessible at https://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
39. Rosenberg-Yunger ZRS, Thorsteinsdóttir H, Daar AS, Martin DK. Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: an international perspective. Health Policy 2012; 105: 226-235.
40. Douglas CMW, Wilcox E, Burgess M, Lynd LD. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement. Health Policy 2015; 119: 588-596.
41. Gutierrez L, Patris J, Hutchings A, Cowell W. Principles for consistent value assessment and sustainable funding of orphan drugs in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2015; 10: 53.
42. Platform on Access to Medicines in Europe- Working Group on Mechanism of Coordinated Access to Orphan Medicinal Products (MoCA-OMP): Process on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Field of Pharmaceuticals. Transparent Value Framework. 2013. Accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/Docs-Room/documents/7631/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf
43. Working Group on Mechanism of Coordinated Access to Orphan Medicinal Products (MoCA-OMP): Process on corporate social responsibility in the field of pharmaceuticals platform on access to medicines in Europe. Final Report 2013. Accessible at http://ec.europa. eu/DocsRoom/documents/7629/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf
44. Entwistle V, Firnigl D, Ryan M, Francis J, Kinghorn P. Which experiences of health care delivery matter to service users and why?. A critical interpretive synthesis and conceptual map. J Health Serv Res Policy 2012; 17: 70-78.
45. Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2013; 31: 1-10.
46. UK Department of Health: A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines. Accessible at http://webarchive.nationalarchives. gov.uk/20130107105354/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/prod-consum-dh/groups/dh-digitalassets/.@ dh/.@ en/documents/digitalasset/dh-122793.pdf
47. 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: 36-42.
48. Schlander M, Beck M. Expensive drugs for rare disorders: to treat or not to treat?. The case of enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis VI. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 1285-1293.
49. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe: Access to new medicines in Europe: technical review of policy initiatives and opportunities for collaboration and research (2015). Accessible at http://www.euro.who. int/en/health-Topics/Health-systems/medicines/publications2/2015/access-To-newmedicines-in-europe-Technical-review-ofpolicy-initiatives-And-opportunities-for-collaboration-And-research
50. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, Longrenn T, Mussen F, Peacock S, Watkins J, Ijzerman M. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-An introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016; 19: 1-13.
51. Marsh K, Ijzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kaló Z, Lönngren T, Mussen F, Peacock S, Watkins J, Devlin N; ISPOR Task Force: Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016; 19: 125-137.
52. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 2012; 15: 1172-1181.
53. Kanters TA, Hakkaart L, Rutten-van Mölken MP, Redekop WK. Access to orphan drugs in western Europe: can more systematic policymaking really help to avoid different decisions about the same drug?. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2015; 15: 557-559.
54. Diaby V, Goeree R, Hoch J, Siebert U. Multicriteria decision analysis for health technology assessment in Canada: insights from an expert panel discussion. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2015; 15: 13-19.
55. European network for Health Technology Assessment: HTA Core Model ® . Accessible at http://www.eunethta.eu/hta-core-model (accessed March 6, 2014
56. Kleijnen S, Toenders W, de Groot F, Huic M, George E, Wieseler B, Pavlovic M, Bucsics A, Siviero PD, van der Graaff M, Rdzany R, Kristensen FB, Goettsch W. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: what is needed to be successful?. Health Policy 2015; 119: 569-576.
57. Leyens L, Brand A. Early patient access to medicines: health technology assessment bodies need to catch up with new marketing authorization methods. Public Health Genomics 2016; 19: 187-191.
58. Backhouse ME, Wonder M, Hornby E, Kilburg A, Drummond M, Mayer FK. Early dialogue between the developers of new technologies and pricing and reimbursement agencies: a pilot study. Value Health 2011; 14: 608-615.
59. Berntgen M, Gourvil A, Pavlovic M, Goettsch W, Eichler HG, Kristensen FB. Improving the contribution of regulatory assessment reports to health technology assessments-A collaboration between the European Medicines Agency and the European network for Health Technology Assessment. Value Health 2014; 17: 634-641.
60. Henshall C, Mardhani-Bayne L, Fronsdal KB, Klemp M. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 253-260.
61. Fronsdal K, Pichler F, Mardhani-Bayne L, Henshall C, Rottingen JA, Morland B, Klemp M. Interaction initiatives between regulatory, health technology assessment and coverage bodies, and industry. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28: 374-381.
62. European Medicines Agency: Adaptive pathways to patients: report on the initial experience of the pilot project. EMA/758619/2014. Accessible at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Report/2014/12/WC500179560.pdf
63. Shaping European Early Dialogues (SEED). Accessible at http://www.earlydialogues.eu/has/.(accessed October 8, 2015
64. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Accessible at http://www.eunethta.eu/.(accessed October 8, 2015
65. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, Briggs A, Sullivan SD. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015; 18: 161-172.
66. Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Abadie E, Barnett D, König F, Pearson S. Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: 277-291.
67. Packer C, Simpson S, de Almeida RT. EuroScan International Network member agencies: their structure, processes, and outputs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2015; 31: 78-85.
68. Wonder M. What can be gained from increased early-stage interaction between regulators, payers and the pharmaceutical industry?. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14: 465-467.
69. Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E, Simoens S. 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.
70. Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare s coverage with evidence development. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25: 1218-1230.
71. Stafinski T, McCabe CJ, Menon D. Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28: 113-142.
72. Garrison LP Jr, Towse A, Briggs A, de Pouvourville G, Grueger J, Mohr PE, Severens JL, Siviero P, Sleeper M. Performance-based risksharing 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: 703-719.
73. Klemp M, Fronsdal KB, Facey K. What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 77-83.
74. Ferrario A, Kanavos P. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. Brussels, Belgium: European Medicines Information Network (EMINET). 2013. Accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7627/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf
75. Leyens L, Richer É, Melien O, Ballensiefen W, Brand A. Available tools to facilitate early patient access to medicines in the EU and the USA: analysis of conditional approvals and the implications for personalized medicine. Public Health Genomics 2015; 18: 249-259.
76. Campbell SM, Godman B, Diogene E, Fürst J, Gustafsson LL, MacBride-Stewart S, Malmström RE, Pedersen H, Selke G, Vlahović-Palčevski V, van Woerkom M, Wong-Rieger D, Wettermark B. Quality indicators as a tool in improving the introduction of new medicines. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2015; 116: 146-157.
77. Field MJ, Boat TF. Rare Diseases and Orphan Products, Accelerating Research and Development. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2010.
78. Lee P. Contracting to preserve open science: the privatization of public policy in patent law. Accessible at http://works.bepress.com/peter-lee/3/.
79. Bruyaka O, Zeitzmann HK, Chalamon I, Wokutch RE, Thakur P. Strategic corporate social responsibility and orphan drug development: insights from the US and the EU biopharmaceutical industry. J Bus Ethics 2013; 117: 45-65.