Margreet Franken

Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems.

OBJECTIVES The aim of our study is to compare five European drug reimbursement systems, describe similarities and differences, and obtain insight into their strengths and weaknesses and formulate policy recommendations. METHODS We used the analytical Hutton Framework to assess in detail drug reimbursement systems in Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. We investigated policy documents, explored literature, and conducted fifty-seven interviews with relevant stakeholders. RESULTS All systems aim to balance three main objectives: system sustainability, equity and quality of care. System impact, however, is mainly assessed by drug expenditure. A national reimbursement agency evaluates reimbursement requests on a case-by-case basis. The minister has discretionary power to alter the reimbursement advice in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. All systems make efforts to increase transparency in the decision-making process but none uses formal hierarchical reimbursement criteria nor applies a cost-effectiveness threshold value. Policies to deal with uncertainty vary: financial risk-sharing by price/volume contracts (France, Belgium) versus coverage with evidence development (Sweden, the Netherlands). Although case-by-case revisions are embedded in some systems for specific groups of drugs, systematic (group) revisions are limited. CONCLUSIONS As shared strengths, all systems have clear objectives reflected in reimbursement criteria and all are prepared to pay for drugs with sufficient added value. However, all systems could improve the transparency of the decision-making process; especially appraisal lacks transparency. Systems could increase the use of (systematic) revisions and could make better use of HTA (among others cost-effectiveness) to obtain value for money and ensure system sustainability.

Real‐world health care costs of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma during the era of novel cancer agents

What is known and objective:  High costs of novel agents increasingly put pressure on limited healthcare budgets. Demonstration of their real‐world costs and cost‐effectiveness is often required for reimbursement. However, few published economic evaluations of novel agents for multiple myeloma exist. Moreover, existing cost analyses were heavily based on conventionally treated patients. We investigated real‐world health care costs of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Dutch daily practice.

Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Purpose Since 2000, many new treatment options have become available for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM) after a long period in which dexamethasone and melphalan had been the standard treatment. Direct comparisons of these novel treatments, however, are lacking. This makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the relative added value of each new treatment. Our aim was to synthesize all efficacy evidence, enabling a comparison of all current treatments for R/R MM. Methods We performed a systematic literature review to identify all publicly available phase III randomized controlled trial evidence. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Web site www.ClinicalTrials.gov . In addition, two trials presented at two international hematology congresses (ie, ASCO 2016 and European Hematology Association 2016) were added to include the most recent evidence. In total, 17 randomized controlled trials were identified, including 18 treatment options. The evidence was synthesized using a conventional network meta-analysis. To include all treatments within one network, two treatment options were combined: (1) bortezomib monotherapy and bortezomib plus dexamethasone, and (2) thalidomide monotherapy and thalidomide plus dexamethasone. Results The combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone was identified as the best treatment. It was most favorable in terms of (1) hazard ratio for progression-free survival (0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09 to 0.19), and (2) probability of being best (99% of the simulations). This treatment combination reduced the risk of progression or death by 87% versus dexamethasone, 81% versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone, and 63% versus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Conclusion Our network meta-analysis provides a complete overview of the relative efficacy of all available treatments for R/R MM. Until additional data from randomized studies are available, on the basis of this analysis, the combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone seems to be the best treatment option.

European drug reimbursement systems' legitimacy: Five-country comparison and policy tool

OBJECTIVES. In a democratic system, decision makers are accountable for the reasonableness of their decisions. This presumes (i) transparency, (ii) relevance of the decision criteria, (iii) revisability of decisions, and (iv) enforcement/regulation. We aim to (i) evaluate the extent to which drug reimbursement decision-making processes in different contexts meet these conditions and (ii) develop, starting from these findings, a framework for improving the transparency and the relevance of used decision criteria. METHODS. We evaluated the Austrian, Belgian, French, Dutch, and Swedish drug reimbursement systems. Based on this evaluation, we developed a framework for improving the transparency of drug reimbursement decision-making processes. It makes explicit the questions often addressed implicitly during decision-making processes as well as criteria for answering each question. RESULTS. Transparency of appraisal processes varies across systems. Justification with explicit criteria is generally limited. Although relevant criteria are similar across systems, their operationalization varies and their role in the appraisal process is not always clear. All systems seem to implicitly address five key questions, relating to (i) the medical, therapeutic, and societal need for treatment; (ii) preparedness to pay for treating the condition as a principle and (iii) for using the treatment under consideration; (iv) preparedness to pay more compared with alternatives; and (v) actual willingness to pay from public resources. CONCLUSIONS. Transparency of the appraisal process can be improved by using an explicit decision framework. Systematic use of such a framework enhances consistency across decisions, allows justification of value judgments, and thus enhances legitimacy of societal decision making.

The Unit Costs of Inpatient Hospital Days, Outpatient Visits, and Daycare Treatments in the Fields of Oncology and Hematology

OBJECTIVES Many economic evaluations are conducted in the fields of oncology and hematology, partially owing to the introduction of new expensive drugs in this field. Even though inpatient days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments are frequently the main drivers of total treatment costs, their unit costs often lack generalizability. Therefore, we aimed to determine the unit costs of inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments specifically for oncological and hematological diseases in The Netherlands from the hospitals perspective. METHODS Unit costs were collected from 30 oncological and hematological departments of 6 university and 24 general hospitals. Costs included direct labor and indirect labor, hotel and nutrition, overheads and capital. Ordinary least squares regression models were constructed to examine the degree of association between unit costs and hospital and hospital department characteristics. All costs were based on Euro 2007 cost data. RESULTS At university hospitals, the unit costs per inpatient day were determined at €633 in oncological and €680 in hematological departments. At general hospitals, the mean costs per inpatient day were €400. Unit costs for inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits. and daycare treatments equalled the relative ratio 100:21:44. Direct labor costs were the major cost driver and the type of hospital (university, yes/no) was a strong predictor of unit costs. CONCLUSIONS The present study provided unit costs for inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments in the fields of oncology and hematology. The results may be used as Dutch reference unit prices in economic evaluations assessing oncological and hematological diseases.

A Practical Guide for Using Registry Data to Inform Decisions About the Cost Effectiveness of New Cancer Drugs: Lessons Learned from the PHAROS Registry

Decision makers increasingly request evidence on the real-world cost effectiveness of a new treatment. There is, however, a lack of practical guidance on how to conduct an economic evaluation based on registry data and how this evidence can be used in actual decision making. This paper explains the required steps on how to perform a sound economic evaluation using examples from an economic evaluation conducted with real-world data from the Dutch Population based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies. There are three main issues related to using registry data: confounding by indication, missing data, and insufficient numbers of (comparable) patients. If encountered, it is crucial to accurately deal with these issues to maximize the internal validity and generalizability of the outcomes and their value to decision makers. Multivariate regression modeling, propensity score matching, and data synthesis are well-established methods to deal with confounding. Multiple imputation methods should be used in cases where data are missing at random. Furthermore, it is important to base the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a new treatment compared with its alternative on comparable groups of (matched) patients, even if matching results in a small analytical population. Unmatched real-world data provide insights into the costs and effects of a treatment in a real-world setting. Decision makers should realize that real-world evidence provides extremely valuable and relevant policy information, but needs to be assessed differently compared with evidence derived from a randomized clinical trial.

A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries

Considerations beyond cost-effectiveness are important in reimbursement decision making. We assessed the importance of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in Belgium, France, The Netherlands and Sweden. We investigated scientific literature and policy documents and conducted three interviews in each country (four in The Netherlands) with persons involved in drug reimbursement. Disease severity is an important consideration, especially where the level is high. The Netherlands operationalizes disease severity using the proportional shortfall approach. Sweden uses categories to give an indication of the level of severity. In The Netherlands and Sweden, severity only implicitly plays a role in the decision whether to reimburse a drug, whereas in Belgium and France it also explicitly plays a role in determining the willingness to use public resources. Interviewees acknowledged that as well as a qualitative description of the disease, quantitative information may also be useful as input for decision making. None of them, however, considered this to be of decisive importance. Although disease severity is important in drug reimbursement decision making in all four countries, all seem to struggle in explicitly specifying its actual role. Belgium and France are the most explicit by using levels of severity in setting reimbursement levels; all four countries could, however, improve the transparency of its actual importance relative to the other criteria in the decision-making process.

Practical feasibility of outcomes research in oncology: lessons learned in assessing drug use and cost-effectiveness in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the practical feasibility to develop evidence on drug use and cost-effectiveness in oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS Feasibility was examined using three Dutch case studies. Each case study investigated the degree of appropriate drug use and its incremental cost-effectiveness. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from hospital records. In total, 391, 316 and 139 patients with stage III colon cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer and multiple myeloma were included in 19, 29 and 42 hospitals, respectively. RESULTS The methods used in the case studies were feasible to develop evidence on some aspects of drug use including types of treatments used, dosages, dose modifications and healthcare costs. Aspects such as baseline patient characteristics, reasons to start or stop a treatment and treatment effects were less feasible because of missing values. Despite difficulties to correct for confounding by indication, it was possible to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness by synthesising evidence in two of the three case studies. CONCLUSION It is possible to generate evidence about drug use and cost-effectiveness in oncology practice to facilitate informed decision-making by both payers and physicians. This can improve quality of care and enhance the efficient allocation of resources. However, the optimal approach differs between drugs and their indications. Generating high-quality evidence requires active interdisciplinary collaboration. Patient registries can facilitate data collection but cannot resolve all issues. In most circumstances it is inevitable to use data-synthesis to obtain valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimates, but for some indications it will not be feasible to derive a valid and precise estimate.

Health economic evaluations in reimbursement decision making in the Netherlands: Time to take it seriously?

Health technology assessment already informed Dutch policymaking in the early 1980s. Evidence of health economic evaluations is, however, only systematically used in drug reimbursement decision making. Outpatient drugs with an added therapeutic value and expensive specialist drugs require evidence from an economic evaluation. Due to many exemptions, however, the availability of evidence of health economic evaluations remains rather low. Although the Dutch reimbursement agency suggested a cost-effectiveness threshold range depending on the severity of the disease (i.e., €10,000 - 80,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year), it was never confirmed nor endorsed by the Ministry of Health. It is highly questionable whether health economic evaluations currently play a role in actual Dutch reimbursement decision making. Although the requirements exist in policy procedures, recent cases show that Dutch policymakers experience great difficulties in putting restrictions on reimbursement based on evidence from health economic evaluations. The near future will show whether the need will increase to base decisions on societal value for money, and whether Dutch policymakers show the courage to take health economic evaluations seriously.

Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry: Quality assurance in the care of patients with metastatic melanoma in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND In recent years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically due to the development of immune checkpoint and mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase inhibitors. A population-based registry, the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), was set up in July 2013 to assure the safety and quality of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This article describes the design and objectives of the DMTR and presents some results of the first 2 years of registration. METHODS The DMTR documents detailed information on all Dutch patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma. This includes tumour and patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, quality of life, healthcare utilisation, informal care and productivity losses. These data are used for clinical auditing, increasing the transparency of melanoma care, providing insights into real-world cost-effectiveness and creating a platform for research. RESULTS Within 1 year, all melanoma centres were participating in the DMTR. The quality performance indicators demonstrated that the BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab have been safely introduced in the Netherlands with toxicity rates that were consistent with the phase III trials conducted. The median overall survival of patients treated with systemic therapy was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-11.1) in the first registration year and 12.7 months (95% CI 11.6-13.7) in the second year. CONCLUSION The DMTR is the first comprehensive multipurpose nationwide registry and its collaboration with all stakeholders involved in melanoma care reflects an integrative view of cancer management. In future, the DMTR will provide insights into challenging questions regarding the definition of possible subsets of patients who benefit most from the new drugs.