Expanding access to high-cost medicines under the Universal Health Coverage scheme in Thailand: review of current practices and recommendations

References

• Goddard J. Top 10 most expensive drugs in the world: Healthcare; 2021. https://healthcare-digital.com/top10/top-10-most-expensive-drugs-world.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg R. Regulators have approved the world's most expensive medicine that costs $3.5 million per patient [Internet]. INSIDER; 2022 Nov 24 [cited 2023 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-approves-worlds-most-expensive-drug-costing-35-million-patient-2022-11.
   Google Scholar
• The World Health Organization (WHO). Improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines, and other health products. 2019. Report No.: WHA72.8.
   Google Scholar
• Gronde TV, Uyl-de Groot CA, Pieters TAddressing 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 frameworksPLoS ONE2017128 10.1371/journal.pone.0182613 28813502 5559086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin G, Kwon HY, Bae SFor whom the price escalates: high price and uncertain value of cancer drugsInt J Environ Res Public Health.202219742048 10.3390/ijerph19074204 35409887 8998346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paris V, Belloni A. Value in pharmaceutical pricing. OECD Health Working Papers, No. 63, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013; https://doi.org/10.1787/5k43jc9v6knx-en.
   Google Scholar
• Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, Suchonwanich N, Kingkaew PThe use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in ThailandZ Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes20141087397404 10.1016/j.zefq.2014.06.017 25444298
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson MG, Oliver S, Melendez-Torres GJ, Lavis JN, Waddell K, Dickson KPaper 3: selecting rapid review methods for complex questions related to health policy and system issuesSyst Rev2021101286 10.1186/s13643-021-01834-y 34717777 8556903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawlins MDNational Institute for Clinical Excellence: NICE worksJ R Soc Med20151086211219 10.1177/0141076815587658 26085559 4480561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roza S, Junainah S, Izzuna MMG, Ku Nurhasni KAR, Yusof MAM, Noormah MD, et al.Health technology assessment in Malaysia: past, present, and futureInt J Technol Assess Health Care2019356446451 10.1017/S0266462319000023 30864531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani HPriority setting for health technology assessment at CADTHInt J Technol Assess Health Care2010263341347 10.1017/S0266462310000383 20584365
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae EY, Kim HJ, Lee HJ, Jang J, Lee SM, Jung Y, et al.Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South KoreaPLoS ONE20181310 10.1371/journal.pone.0206121 30356251 6200251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Team. NECDF. Appraisal and funding of cancer drugs from July 2016 (including the new Cancer Drugs Fund)—a new deal for patients, taxpayers and industry. England; 2016 08 July 2016.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE health technology evaluation topic selection: the manual 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Australia. DoH. Procedure guidance for medicines funded through the Life Saving Drugs Program (LSDP). 2018.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Technical report: pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts: a comprehensive technical report for the World Health Assembly Resolution 70.12: operative paragraph 2.9 on pricing approaches and their impacts on availability and affordability of medicines for the prevention and treatment of cancer. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 2018.
   Google Scholar
• IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Global oncology Trends 2022. Outlook to 2026. 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Sabry-Grant C, Malottki K, Diamantopoulos AThe cancer drugs fund in practice and under the new frameworkPharmacoeconomics2019377953962 10.1007/s40273-019-00793-6 30941698
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The Innovative Medicines Fund: Principles. England: NHS England and NHS Improvement; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Bang JS, Lee JHThe national drug formulary listing process for orphan drugs in South Korea: narrative review focused on pricing and reimbursement pathwaysExpert Opin Orphan Drugs202194105112 10.1080/21678707.2021.1913121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edney LC, Haji Ali Afzali H, Cheng TC, Karnon JEstimating the reference incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Australian health systemPharmacoeconomics2018362239252 10.1007/s40273-017-0585-2 29273843
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klemp M, Frønsdal KB, Facey KWhat principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?Int J Technol Assess Health Care20112717783 10.1017/S0266462310001297 21262072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Ferrario A, Tafuri G, Siviero P. Managing risk and uncertainty in health technology introduction: the role of managed entry agreements. 2017;8(S2):84-92.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DLLinking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturersHealth Policy2010963179190 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.02.005 20226559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LHRH Analogues [Internet]. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP); 2014 Apr [cited 2023 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.hitap.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PB_LHRH_Final-for-Web.pdf.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gong JR, Lee D, Lim K-M, Bae SAre recently evaluated drugs more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations in South Korea? 11-year experience of the South Korean positive list systemClin Ther202042712221233 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB3cXpvFGju7w%3D 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.05.006 32487429
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon P, Chamberlain C, Hollingworth WDid it matter that the cancer drugs fund was not NICE? A retrospective reviewValue Health2016196879884 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.001 27712717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aggarwal A, Fojo T, Chamberlain C, Davis C, Sullivan RDo patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs FundAnn Oncol201728817381750 1:STN:280:DC%2BC1crit1alsg%3D%3D 10.1093/annonc/mdx110 28453615 5834015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain C, Hollingworth WWhere is the evidence for the existence of the cancer drugs fund?BMJ (Clinical research ed)2014349 25269627
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Macdonald H, Goldacre B. Does the reformed cancer drug fund generate evidence on effectiveness? A cross-sectional analysis on publicly accessible documentation. 2020:2020.03.06.19014944.
   Google Scholar
• Kang J, Cairns J“Don’t think twice, it’s all right”: using additional data to reduce uncertainty regarding oncologic drugs provided through managed access agreements in EnglandPharmacoEconomics - Open2023717791 10.1007/s41669-022-00369-9 36123583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towse AValue based pricing, research and development, and patient access schemes. Will the United Kingdom get it right or wrong?Br J Clin Pharmacol2010703360366 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03740.x 20716236 2949908
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrario A, Kanavos PDealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: a comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and SwedenSoc Sci Med198220151243947
   Google Scholar
• Castro HE, Malpica-Llanos T, Musila R, Konduri N, Amaris A, Sullivan J, et al.Sharing knowledge for policy action in low- and middle-income countries: a literature review of managed entry agreementsMed Access Point Care.201932399202619834246 10.1177/2399202619834246
   Google Scholar
• Chen W, Anothaisintawee T, Butani D, Wang Y, Zemlyanska Y, Wong CBN, et al.Assessing the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ Open2022124 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057537 35383079 8984003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar