A checklist for managed access programmes for reimbursement co-designed by Canadian patients and caregivers

Health Expectations

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 973-980

  Young, Andrea ^a   Menon, Devidas ^a   Street, Jackie ^b   Al Hertani, Walla ^c   Stafinski, Tania ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

managed access programmes; orphan drugs; patient input; patient involvement; rare diseases

Indexed keywords

CANADA; CAREGIVER; CHECKLIST; COOPERATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG MANUFACTURE; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROCEDURES; RISK MANAGEMENT;

CANADA; CAREGIVERS; CHECKLIST; COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 85044951167     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12690     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 of 27 April 2000. Office Journal of the European Communities. https://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2000_847/reg_2000_847_en.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2018.
2. Drummond MF. Challenges in the economic evaluation of orphan drugs. Eurohealth. 2008;14:16-17.
3. Patel KR. Orphan Drug Debate: A Cheat Sheet. Managed Care. https://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/2017/6/orphan-drug-debate-cheat-sheet. Published June 6, 2017. Accessed January 29, 2018.
4. 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.
5. Rosenberg-Yunger ZR, Daar AS, Thorsteinsdottir H, Martin DK. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison. Health Policy. 2011;100:25-34.
6. Meekings KN, Williams CS, Arrowsmith JE. Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17:660-664.
7. 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.
8. Pauwels K, Huys I, Vogler S, Casteels C, Simoens S. Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:171.
9. 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.
10. Procedure for the review of Patient Access Scheme proposals. NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/PASLU/PASLU-procedure-guide.pdf. Published January 2018. Accessed January 29, 2018.
11. Young A, Menon D, Street J, Al-Hertani W, Stafinski T. Exploring patient and family involvement in the lifecycle of an orphan drug: a scoping review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12:188.
12. McIntyre A. Participatory Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 2008.
13. Young A, Menon D, Street J, Al-Hertani W, Stafinski T. Engagement of Canadian patients with rare diseases and their families in the lifecycle of therapy: a qualitative study. Patient. 2018;12:188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0293-1.
14. Attride-Stirling J. Thematic Networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual Res. 2001;1:385-405.
15. Savin-Baden M, Howell Major C. Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice (1st edn). Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge; 2012.
16. Definition of notion. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notion. Accessed August 1, 2016.
17. Guidance documents on patient involvement in HTA. EUPATI. https://www.eupati.eu/health-technology-assessment/guidance-for-patient-involvement-in-hta/. Published December 14, 2016. Accessed January 29, 2018.
18. Guidance documents on patient involvement in R&D. EUPATI. https://www.eupati.eu/guidance-patient-involvement/. Accessed January 29, 2018.
19. Eurordis Charter for collaboration between sponsors and patient organisations for clinical trials in rare diseases. EURORDIS. https://www.eurordis.org/publication/eurordis-charter-clinical-trials-rare-diseases. Accessed January 29, 2019.
20. McCabe C, Stafinski T, Edlin R, Menon D. Access with evidence development schemes: a framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:143-152.
21. Kraetschmer N, Sharpe N, Urowitz S, Deber R. How does trust affect patient preferences for participation in decision-making? Health Expect. 2004;7:317-326.
22. Eliott J, Oliver I. The discursive properties of “Hope”: a qualitative analysis of cancer patients' speech. Qual Health Res. 2002;12:173-193.
23. Wahlberg A, Streitfellner T. Stem cell tourism. Desperation and the governing of new therapies. In: Döring O, ed. Life Sciences in Translation: A Sino-European Dialogue on Ethical Governance of the Life Sciences. BIONET Textbook (2nd edn), London, UK: BIONET; 2009.
24. Public expectations of the health care system. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. http://www.wrha.mb.ca/about/engagement/lhig/files/CHAC_Report_May10.pdf. Published May, 2010. Accessed August 20, 2017.
25. Winkelhage J, Schreier M, Diederich A. Priority setting in health care: attitudes of physicians and patients. Health. 2013;5:712-719.