Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries

Efthymiadou, Olina and Kanavos, Panos ORCID: 0000-0001-9518-3089 (2022) Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries. BMC Health Services Research, 22 (1). ISSN 1472-6963

Text (Efthymiadou_impact-of-managed-entry-agreements--published) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB)

• Author
• Author
• Scopus publication

Abstract

Background: Despite the increased utilisation of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs), empirical studies assessing their impact on achieving better access to medicines remains scarce. In this study we evaluated the role of MEAs on enhancing availability of and timely access to a sample of oncology medicines that had received at least one prior rejection from reimbursement. Methods: Funding decisions and their respective timelines for all oncology medicines approved between 2009 and 2018 in Australia, England, Scotland and Sweden were studied. A number of binary logit models captured the probability (Odds ratio (OR)) of a previous coverage rejection being reversed to positive after resubmission with vs. without a MEA. Gamma generalised linear models were used to understand if there is any association between time to final funding decision and the presence of MEA, among other decision-making variables, and if so, the strength and direction of this association (Beta coefficient (B)). Results: Of the 59 previously rejected medicine-indication pairs studied, 88.2% (n=45) received a favourable decision after resubmission with MEA vs. 11.8% (n=6) without. Average time from original submission to final funding decision was 404 (254) and 452 (364) days for submissions without vs. with MEA respectively. Resubmissions with a MEA had a higher likelihood of receiving a favourable funding decision compared to those without MEA (43.36<OR<202, p<0.05), although approval specifically with an outcomes-based agreement was associated with an increase in the time to final funding decision (B=0.89, p<0.01). A statistically significant decrease in time to final funding decision was observed for resubmissions in Australia and Scotland compared to England and Sweden, and for resubmissions with a clinically relevant instead of a surrogate endpoint. Conclusions: MEAs can improve availability of medicines by increasing the likelihood of reimbursement for medicines that would have otherwise remained rejected from reimbursement due to their evidentiary uncertainties. Nevertheless, approval with a MEA can increase the time to final funding decision, while the true, added value for patients and healthcare systems of the interventions approved with MEAs in comparison to other available interventions remains unknown.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/
Additional Information:	© 2022 The Authors
Divisions:	Health Policy
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine R Medicine > RM Therapeutics. Pharmacology
Date Deposited:	28 Jul 2022 15:39
Last Modified:	12 Dec 2024 03:09
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/115703

Actions (login required)

View Item