Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

References

• IQVIA. The Global Use of Medicine in 2019 and Outlook to 2023 - Forecasts and Areas to Watch. 2019. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/institute-reports/the-global-use-of-medicine-in-2019-and-outlook-to-2023.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Waters R, Urquhart L. EvaluatePharma® World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024. 2019. [cited 2020 Dec10]. Available at URL: https://info.evaluate.com/rs/607-YGS-364/images/EvaluatePharma_World_Preview_2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Global Oncology Trends 2018. [cited 2020 Dec9]. Available at URL: https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/global-oncology-trends-2018.
   Google Scholar
• Simoens S, van Harten W, Lopes G, et al. What Happens when the Cost of Cancer Care Becomes Unsustainable. Eur Oncol Haematol. 2017;13(2):108–113.
   Google Scholar
• IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. Global Oncology Trend Report. A Review of 2015 and Outlook to 2020. June 2016. [cited 2020 Dec 11]. Available at URL: https://www.scribd.com/document/323179495/IMSH-Institute-Global-Oncology-Trend-2015-2020-Report.
   Google Scholar
• Haycox A. Why Cancer? PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(7):625–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard DH, Bach P, Berndt ER, et al. Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(1):139–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen D Cancer drugs: high price, uncertain value. BMJ. 2017;359:j4543.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts. Geneva: world Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/277190/9789241515115-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
   Google Scholar
• Molto C, Hwang TJ, Borrell M, et al. Clinical benefit and cost of breakthrough cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Cancer. 2020;126(19):4390–4399. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauenroth VD, Kesselheim AS, Sarpatwari A, et al. Lessons from the impact of price regulation on the pricing of anticancer drugs in Germany. Health Affairs. 2020;39(7):1185–1193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilking N, Bucsics A, Kandolf Sekulovic L, et al. Achieving equal and timely access to innovative anticancer drugs in the European Union (EU): summary of a multidisciplinary CECOG-driven roundtable discussion with a focus on Eastern and South-Eastern EU countries. ESMO Open. 2019;4(6):e000550–e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association of European Cancer Leagues. LET’S TALK ACCESS! WHITE PAPER ON TACKLING CHALLENGES IN ACCESS TO MEDICINES FOR ALL CANCER PATIENTS IN EUROPE. 2018 . [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available at URL: https://www.europeancancerleagues.org/wp-content/uploads/ECL-Lets-Talk-Access-White-Paper.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgart DC, Misery L, Naeyaert S, et al. Biological therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: can biosimilars reduce access inequities? Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghinea H, Kerridge I, Lipworth W If we don’t talk about value, cancer drugs will become terminal for health systems. 2015. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: http://theconversation.com/if-we-dont-talk-about-value-cancer-drugs-will-become-terminal-for-health-systems-44072 [
   Google Scholar
• Shukla V, Seoane-Vazquez E, Fawaz S, et al. Landscape of cellular and gene therapy products: authorization, discontinuations, and cost. Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev. 2019;30(3):102–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow JF, Yang M, Teagarden JR. Are payers ready, willing, and able to provide access to new durable gene therapies? Value Health. 2019;22(6):642–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Sullivan R. Economics of Cancer Medicines: for Whose Benefit? 2017;23(1):95–104. The New Bioethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA. 2018;68(2):153–165.
   Google Scholar
• Gershon N, Berchenko Y, Hall PS, et al. Cost effectiveness and affordability of trastuzumab in sub-Saharan Africa for early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. Cost Eff Resour Allocation. 2019;17:5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Ziftawi NH, Shafie AA, Mohamed Ibrahim MI Cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer medications use in developing countries: a systematic review. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2020:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA. 2018;68(6):394–424.
   Google Scholar
• Atieno OM, Opanga S, Martin A, et al. Pilot study assessing the direct medical cost of treating patients with cancer in Kenya; findings and implications for the future. J Med Econ. 2018;21(9):878–887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godman B. Biosimilars are becoming indispensable in the management of multiple diseases although concerns still exist. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2021;20(1):5-10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill A, Redd C, Gotham D, et al. Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e011965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godman B, Hill A, Simoens S, et al. Pricing of oral generic cancer medicines in 25 European countries; findings and implications. GaBI J. 2019;8(2):49–70.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen TB, Kim SC, Jimenez-Solem E, et al. Shift From Adalimumab Originator to Biosimilars in Denmark. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):902–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagonowsky E. AbbVie’s massive Humira discounts are stifling Netherlands biosimilars: report. 2019. [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available at URL: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/abbvie-stifling-humira-biosim-competition-massive-discounting-dutch-report.
   Google Scholar
• Lee Mendoza R. Incentives and disincentives to drug innovation: evidence from recent literature. J Med Econ. 2019;22(8):713–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarosławski S, Toumi M, Auquier P, et al. Non-profit Drug Research and Development at a Crossroads. Pharm Res. 2018;35(3):52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marselis D, Hordijk L. From blockbuster to “nichebuster”: how a flawed legislation helped create a new profit model for the drug industry. BMJ. 2020;370:m2983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. FDA approves larotrectinib for solid tumors with NTRK gene fusions. 2018. [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available at URL: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/fda-approves-larotrectinib-solid-tumors-ntrk-gene-fusions-0.
   Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Hwang TJ, Vokinger KN, et al. Patient-Centered Cancer Drug Development: clinical Trials, Regulatory Approval, and Value Assessment. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book. 2019(39):374–387.
   Google Scholar
• Pontes C, Zara C, Torrent-Farnell J, et al. Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020;18(1):5–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vella Bonanno P, Ermisch M, Godman B, et al. Adaptive Pathways: possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMartino PC, Miljkovic MD, Prasad V. Potential Cost Implications for All US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Drug Approvals in 2018. JAMA Intern Med.  2021;181(2):162-16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakdawalla DN, Doshi JA, Garrison LP Jr., et al. Defining Elements of Value in Health Care-A Health Economics Approach: an ISPOR Special Task Force Report [3]. Value Health. 2018;21(2):131–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison LP Jr., Kamal-Bahl S, Towse A. Toward a Broader Concept of Value: identifying and Defining Elements for an Expanded Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Value Health. 2017;20(2):213–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna I How do we Measure the “Value” in Value-Based care? OHE Seminar Briefing 31. London.2019. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/how-do-we-measure-%E2%80%9Cvalue%E2%80%9D-value-based-care.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson JS, Summerhayes M, Masters S, et al. New treatments for advanced cancer: an approach to prioritization. Br J Cancer. 2000;83(10):1268–1273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild C, Grossmann N, Bonanno PV, et al. Utilisation of the ESMO-MCBS in practice of HTA. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(11):2134–2136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortinguerra F, Tafuri G, Trotta F, et al. GRADE methodology to assess innovation of new medicinal products in Italy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86(1):93–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AIM. AIM PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A EUROPEAN DRUG PRICING MODEL FOR FAIR AND TRANSPARENT PRICES FOR ACCESSIBLE PHARMACEUTICAL INNOVATIONS. [cited 2020 Dec 11]. Available at URL: https://www.aim-mutual.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AIMs-proposal-for-fair-and-transparent-prices-for-pharmaceuticals.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Uyl-de Groot CA, Lowenberg B. Sustainability and affordability of cancer drugs: a novel pricing model. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(7):405–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. WHO guideline on country pharmaceutical pricing policies, second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available at URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/335692/9789240011878-eng.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Zampirolli Dias C, Godman B, Gargano LP, et al. Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: chances and Limitations. PharmacoEconomics. 2020;38(11):1165–1185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrario A, Arāja D, Bochenek T, et al. The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: findings and Implications. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(12):1271–1285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson JJ, Chen S, Garrison LP Jr. Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: an Updated International Review. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(10):1063–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AM P, HM K, NS D, et al. Postapproval studies of drugs initially approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence: systematic review. BMJ. 2017;357:j1680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu JC, Lin J-Y, Lin P-C, et al. Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: an example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment. PloS One. 2019;14(12):e0225938–e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annemans L. A proposal for value informed, affordable (“via”) prices for innovative medicines. J Med Econ. 2019;22(11):1235–1239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Workman P, Draetta GF, Schellens JH, et al. How Much Longer Will We Put Up With $100,000 Cancer Drugs? Cell. 2017;168(4):579–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp-Casey A, Pratt N, Ramsay E, et al. Using Post-market Utilisation Analysis to Support Medicines Pricing Policy: an Australian Case Study of Aflibercept and Ranibizumab Use. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(3):411–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson I, Wettermark B, Persson M, et al. The Early Awareness and Alert System in Sweden: history and Current Status. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towse A, Cole A, Zamora B The Debate on IndicationBased Pricing in the U.S. and Five Major European Countries. 2018. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: file:///C:/Users/mail/Downloads/OHE%20IBP%20Final%20Report%20May%202018%20(Revised).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Campbell JD, Kalo Z. Fair global drug pricing. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2018;18(6):581–583.
   Google Scholar
• Godman B, Bucsics A, Vella Bonanno P, et al. Barriers for Access to New Medicines: searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets. Front Public Health. 2018;6:328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorkens E, Vulto AG, Huys I, et al. Policies for biosimilar uptake in Europe: an overview. PloS One. 2017;12(12):e0190147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. DEFINING VALUE IN “VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE”. Report of the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH). 2019. [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available at URL: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/expert_panel/docs/024_defining-value-vbhc_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Garrison LP, Towse A. Value-Based Pricing and Reimbursement in Personalised Healthcare: introduction to the Basic Health Economics. J Pers Med. 2017;7(3):10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett A, Roques T, Small M, et al. How much will Herceptin really cost? BMJ. 2006;333(7578):1118–1120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson M, Nilsson FO, Arnberg K. Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: the Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(11):1229–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berdud M, Drummond M, Towse A. Establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug. Cost Eff Resour Allocation. 2020;18(1):31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHugh N, van Exel J, Mason H, et al. Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints. Soc Sci Med. 2018;198:61–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simoens S, Picavet E, Dooms M, et al. Cost-effectiveness assessment of orphan drugs: a scientific and political conundrum. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):1–3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paoletti X, Lewsley LA, Daniele G, et al. Assessment of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point of Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(1):e1918939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasad V, Kim C, Burotto M, et al. The Strength of Association Between Surrogate End Points and Survival in Oncology: A Systematic Review of Trial-Level Meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1389–1398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis LM, Bernstein DS, Voest EE, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(12):1277–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreicer JJ, Mailankody S, Fahkrejahani F, et al. Clinically meaningful benefit: real world use compared against the American and European guidelines. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7(12):645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantarjian HM, Fojo T, Mathisen M, et al. Cancer drugs in the United States: justum Pretium–the just price. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(28):3600–3604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis C, Naci H, Gurpinar E, et al. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ. 2017;359:j4530.
   Google Scholar
• Salas-Vega S, Iliopoulos O, Mossialos E. Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(3):382–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauwels K, Huys I, Vogler S, et al. Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Addressing Challenges in Access to Oncology Medicines - Analytical Report. 2020. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Addressing-Challenges-in-Access-to-Oncology-Medicines-Analytical-Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Addeo A. Negative phase 3 randomized controlled trials: why cancer drugs fail the last barrier? Int J Cancer. 2018;143(8):2079–2081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grignolo A, Pretorius S Phase III Trial Failures, Costly But Preventable. Applied Clinical Trials. 2016. [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available at URL: https://www.parexel.com/application/files_previous/5014/7274/5573/ACT_Article.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Garattini L, Curto A. Performance-Based Agreements in Italy: ‘Trendy Outcomes’ or Mere Illusions? PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(10):967–969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edlin R, Hall P, Wallner K, et al. Sharing risk between payer and provider by leasing health technologies: an affordable and effective reimbursement strategy for innovative technologies? Value Health. 2014;17(4):438–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makady A, van Veelen A, de Boer A, et al. Implementing managed entry agreements in practice: the Dutch reality check. Health Policy. 2019;123(3):267–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennie M Cancer Medicines Outcome Project (CMOP). [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: https://cancerchallengescotland.com/sites/default/files/documents/event_item/PROMsPREMs_Info_Session_190417/cic_info_session_190417_marion_bennie.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Baillie K, Mueller T, Pan J, et al. Use of record linkage to evaluate treatment outcomes and trial eligibility in a real-world metastatic prostate cancer population in Scotland. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29(6):653–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright CJ, Lawton S, Benson S, et al. Data Resource Profile: the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;49(1):15–l.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Cancer Drugs Fund Managed Access Agreement Axicabtagene ciloleucel for treating diffuse large Bcell lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more systemic therapies [TA559]. January 2019. [cited 2020 Dec 11]. Available at URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta559/resources/managed-access-agreement-january-2019-pdf-6660053245.
   Google Scholar
• Kefalas P, Ali O, Jorgensen J, et al. Establishing the cost of implementing a performance-based, managed entry agreement for a hypothetical CAR T-cell therapy. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2018;6(1):1511679.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nazareth T, Ko JJ, Sasane R, et al. Outcomes-Based Contracting Experience: research Findings from U.S. and European Stakeholders. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(10):1018–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonanzas F, Juarez-Castello C, Lorente R, et al. Use of Risk-Sharing Contracts in Healthcare: theoretical and Empirical Assessments. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(12):1469–1483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toumi M, Jaroslawski S, Sawada T, et al. The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements: current Debate. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(1):5–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Omar HA, Alghannam HH, Aljuffali IA Exploring the status and views of managed entry agreements in Saudi Arabia: mixed-methods approach. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2020:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hampson G, Towse A, WB D, et al. Real-world evidence for coverage decisions: opportunities and challenges. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(12):1133–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisk P, Aggefors K, Cars T, et al. Introduction of the second-generation direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in chronic hepatitis C: a register-based study in Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;74(7):971–978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson I, Wettermark B, Bergfeldt K. Real-World Use and Outcomes of Olaparib: a Population-Based Cohort Study. Target Oncol. 2018;13(6):725–733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clopes A, Gasol M, Cajal R, et al. Financial consequences of a payment-by-results scheme in Catalonia: gefitinib in advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer. J Med Econ. 2017;20(1):1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen J, Hanna E, Kefalas P. Outcomes-based reimbursement for gene therapies in practice: the experience of recently launched CAR-T cell therapies in major European countries. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2020;8(1):1715536.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alkhatib NS, Abraham I. The six Delta platform for outcome-based contracting for pharmaceuticals. J Med Econ. 2020;23(11):1209-14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eatwell E, Swierczyna A Emerging voluntary cooperation between European healthcare systems: are we facing a new future? Medicine Access@Point of Care 2019; 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Berns A, Ringborg U, Celis JE, et al. Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations. Mol Oncol. 2020;14(8):1589–1615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard S, Scott IA, Ju H, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: the Queensland Health experience. Aust Health Rev. 2019;43(5):591–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roldán Ú, Bradia X, Marcos-Rodríguez JA, et al. MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS AS A DECISION-SUPPORT TOOL FOR DRUG EVALUATION: A PILOT STUDY IN A PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE SETTING. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(5):519–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15(6):961–970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaur G, Prinja S, Lakshmi PVM, et al. Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(6):474–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapiriri L, Baltussen R, Oortwijn W. Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(1):29–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Linch M, Montibeller G, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: piloting the Advance Value Framework. Soc Sci Med. 2020;246:112595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezeife DA, Dionne F, Fares AF, et al. Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach. Cancer. 2020;126(7):1530–1540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiStefano MJ, Krubiner CB. Beyond the numbers: a critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CADTH. The pCODR Expert Review Committee (pERC). 2020. Available at URL: https://www.cadth.ca/collaboration-and-outreach/advisory-bodies/pcodr-expert-review-committee-perc.
   Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, et al. Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1283–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Kriza C, et al. Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(262).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole A, Towse A, Lorgelly P, et al. Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals. Available at URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/economics-innovative-payment-models-compared-single-pricing-pharmaceuticals-0.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. INNOVATIVE PAYMENT MODELS FOR HIGH-COST INNOVATIVE MEDICINES. Report of the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH). 2018. Available at URL: https://ec.europa.eu/health/expert_panel/sites/expertpanel/files/docsdir/opinion_innovative_medicines_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Yeung K, Li M, Carlson JJ. Using Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements to Address Uncertainty in Indication-Based Pricing. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(10):1010–1015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campillo-Artero C, Puig-Junoy J, Segu-Tolsa JL, et al. Models for Multi-indication Drugs: A Systematic Review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020;18(1):47–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra A, Garthwaite C. The Economics of Indication-Based Drug Pricing. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(2):103–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Zozaya N, Alcalá B, et al. Multi-Indication Pricing: nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice? PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(12):1407–1420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann M, Vander Stichele R, Bates DW, et al. Guiding principles for the use of knowledge bases and real-world data in clinical decision support systems: report by an international expert workshop at Karolinska Institutet. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2020;13(9):925–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garattini L, Curto A, van de Vooren K. Do the current performance-based schemes in Italy really work? “Success fee”: a novel measure for cost-containment of drug expenditure. Value Health. 2015;18(2):352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Towse A, Dellamano R, et al. Multiindication pricing: pros, cons and applicability to the UK. OHE 2015. Available at URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/multi-indication-pricing-pros-cons-and-applicability-uk.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Fair Pricing Forum 2017 Meeting Report. 2017. Available at URL: https://www.who.int/medicines/access/fair_pricing/FairPricingForum2017MeetingReport.pdf?ua=1.
   Google Scholar
• Moon S, Mariat S, Kamae I, et al. Defining the concept of fair pricing for medicines. BMJ. 2020;368:l4726–l.
   Google Scholar
• Suleman F, Low M, Moon S, et al. New business models for research and development with affordability requirements are needed to achieve fair pricing of medicines. BMJ. 2020;368:l4408–l.
   Google Scholar
• Prokupkova A Tackling challenges in access to innovative cancer medicines - societal perspective. 2019. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: https://www.aim-mutual.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Anna-Prokupkova_The-societal-perspective-Tackling-challenges-in-access-to-innovative-cancer-medicines.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hill A, Gotham D, Fortunak J, et al. Target prices for mass production of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for global cancer treatment. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill AM, Barber MJ, Gotham D. Estimated costs of production and potential prices for the WHO Essential Medicines List. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(1):e000571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Experts in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. The price of drugs for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a reflection of the unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts. Blood. 2013;121(22):4439–4442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser J. Personalized medicine. New cystic fibrosis drug offers hope, at a price. Science (New York, NY). 2012;335(6069):645.
   Google Scholar
• Luzzatto L, Hyry HI, Schieppati A, et al. Outrageous prices of orphan drugs: a call for collaboration. Lancet. 2018;392(10149):791–794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollis A. Orphan Drug Pricing and Costs: A Case Study of Kalydeco and Orkambi. Healthcare Policy. 2019;15(1):70–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tefferi A, Kantarjian H, Rajkumar SV, et al. In Support of a Patient-Driven Initiative and Petition to Lower the High Price of Cancer Drugs. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(8):996–1000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Oliveira GL, Guerra Junior AA, Godman B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Brazil; findings and implications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(2):109–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godoi IP, Santos AS, Reis EA, et al. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Dengue Vaccine (CYD-TDV, Dengvaxia(R)) in Brazil; Implications for Future Pricing Considerations. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muniz Júnior RL, Godói IP, Reis EA, et al. Consumer willingness to pay for a hypothetical Zika vaccine in Brazil and the implications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(4):473–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acosta A, Vanegas EP, Rovira J, et al. Medicine Shortages: gaps Between Countries and Global Perspectives. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popa C, Holvoet K, Van Montfort T, et al. Risk-Return Analysis of the Biopharmaceutical Industry as Compared to Other Industries. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franzen N, Retèl VP, Schats W, et al. Evidence Underlying Policy Proposals for Sustainable Anticancer Drug Prices: A Systematic Review. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(6):909–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Mahony JF. Beneluxa: what are the Prospects for Collective Bargaining on Pharmaceutical Prices Given Diverse Health Technology Assessment Processes? PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(5):627–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tvd G, Uyl-de Groot CA, Pieters T. Addressing the challenge of high-priced prescription drugs in the era of precision medicine: A systematic review of drug life cycles, therapeutic drug markets and regulatory frameworks. PloS One. 2017;12(8):e0182613–e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiddell-Monroe R, Greenberg A, Basey M Re:Route: a map of the alternative biomedical R&D landscape. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, 2016. Available at URL: http://altreroute.com/assets/download/UAEM_Reroute_Report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MIT NEWDIGS FoCUS Project. Designing financial solutions to ensure affordable access to cures - An overview of the MIT FoCUS project. 2018. Available at URL: https://newdigs.mit.edu/sites/default/files/NEWDIGS%20FoCUS%20Frameworks%2020180823.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Maes I, Boufraioua H, Van Dyck W, et al. Innovative funding solutions for paradigm changing advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) in Belgium - Multi-stakeholder consensus on gene therapy funding solutions. Nov 2019. [cited 2020 Dec 11]. Available at URL: https://www.vlerick.com/~/media/Corporate/Pdf-knowledge/Policy-Paper-Innovative-Solutions-For-Paradigm-Changing-New-Therapiespdf.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• AMCP Partnership Forum: designing Benefits and Payment Models for Innovative High-Investment Medications. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(2):156–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towse A, Fenwick E. Uncertainty and Cures: discontinuation, Irreversibility, and Outcomes-Based Payments: what Is Different About a One-Off Treatment? Value Health. 2019;22(6):677–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trusheim MR, Cassidy WM, Bach PB. Alternative State-Level Financing for Hepatitis C Treatment-The “Netflix Model”. Jama. 2018;320(19):1977–1978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalkidou K, Towse A, Silverman R Unpacking the Black Box of Payer Policy: A Demand-Side Approach for Equitable Uptake of Cost-Effective Health Innovation. CGD Note 2020. [cited 2020 Dec 10]. Available at URL: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/Chalkidou-Innovation-Uptake.pdf.
   Google Scholar