BACKGROUND: To ensure rapid access to new potentially beneficial health technologies, obtain best value for money, and ensure affordability, healthcare payers are adopting a range of innovative reimbursement approaches that may be called Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs). METHODS: The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum sought to identify why MEAs might be used, issues associated with implementation and develop principles for their use. A 2-day deliberative workshop discussed key papers, members' experiences, and collectively addressed four policy questions that resulted in this study. RESULTS: MEAs are used to give access to new technologies where traditional reimbursement is deemed inappropriate. Three different forms of MEAs have been identified: management of budget impact, management of uncertainty relating to clinical and/or cost-effectiveness, and management of utilization to optimize performance. The rationale for using these approaches and their advantages and disadvantages differ. However, all forms of MEA should take the form of a formal written agreement among stakeholders, clearly identifying the rationale for the agreement, aspects to be assessed, methods of data collection and review, and the criteria for ending the agreement. CONCLUSIONS: MEAs should only be used when HTA identifies issues or concerns about key outcomes and/or costs and/or organizational/budget impacts that are material to a reimbursement decision. They provide patient access and can be useful to manage technology diffusion and optimize use. However, they are administratively complex and may be difficult to negotiate and their effectiveness has yet to be evaluated.
BACKGROUND: To ensure rapid access to new potentially beneficial health technologies, obtain best value for money, and ensure affordability, healthcare payers are adopting a range of innovative reimbursement approaches that may be called Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs). METHODS: The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum sought to identify why MEAs might be used, issues associated with implementation and develop principles for their use. A 2-day deliberative workshop discussed key papers, members' experiences, and collectively addressed four policy questions that resulted in this study. RESULTS: MEAs are used to give access to new technologies where traditional reimbursement is deemed inappropriate. Three different forms of MEAs have been identified: management of budget impact, management of uncertainty relating to clinical and/or cost-effectiveness, and management of utilization to optimize performance. The rationale for using these approaches and their advantages and disadvantages differ. However, all forms of MEA should take the form of a formal written agreement among stakeholders, clearly identifying the rationale for the agreement, aspects to be assessed, methods of data collection and review, and the criteria for ending the agreement. CONCLUSIONS: MEAs should only be used when HTA identifies issues or concerns about key outcomes and/or costs and/or organizational/budget impacts that are material to a reimbursement decision. They provide patient access and can be useful to manage technology diffusion and optimize use. However, they are administratively complex and may be difficult to negotiate and their effectiveness has yet to be evaluated.
Authors: Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta; Jose Luis Cabriada-Nuño; Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Vicent Hernández-Ramírez; Juan Clofent-Vilaplana; Eugeni Domènech-Morral; Daniel Ginard-Vicens; Gloria Oliva-Oliva; Teresa Queiro-Verdes Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Brian Godman; Bjorn Wettermark; Menno van Woerkom; Jessica Fraeyman; Samantha Alvarez-Madrazo; Christian Berg; Iain Bishop; Anna Bucsics; Stephen Campbell; Alexander E Finlayson; Jurij Fürst; Kristina Garuoliene; Harald Herholz; Marija Kalaba; Ott Laius; Jutta Piessnegger; Catherine Sermet; Ulrich Schwabe; Vera V Vlahović-Palčevski; Vanda Markovic-Pekovic; Luka Vončina; Kamila Malinowska; Corinne Zara; Lars L Gustafsson Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Rickard E Malmström; Brian B Godman; Eduard Diogene; Christoph Baumgärtel; Marion Bennie; Iain Bishop; Anna Brzezinska; Anna Bucsics; Stephen Campbell; Alessandra Ferrario; Alexander E Finlayson; Jurij Fürst; Kristina Garuoliene; Miguel Gomes; Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Alan Haycox; Krystyna Hviding; Harald Herholz; Mikael Hoffmann; Saira Jan; Jan Jones; Roberta Joppi; Marija Kalaba; Christina Kvalheim; Ott Laius; Irene Langner; Julie Lonsdale; Sven-Äke Lööv; Kamila Malinowska; Laura McCullagh; Ken Paterson; Vanda Markovic-Pekovic; Andrew Martin; Jutta Piessnegger; Gisbert Selke; Catherine Sermet; Steven Simoens; Cankat Tulunay; Dominik Tomek; Luka Vončina; Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski; Janet Wale; Michael Wilcock; Magdalena Wladysiuk; Menno van Woerkom; Corrine Zara; Lars L Gustafsson Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Brian Godman; Alexander E Finlayson; Parneet K Cheema; Eva Zebedin-Brandl; Inaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Jan Jones; Rickard E Malmström; Elina Asola; Christoph Baumgärtel; Marion Bennie; Iain Bishop; Anna Bucsics; Stephen Campbell; Eduardo Diogene; Alessandra Ferrario; Jurij Fürst; Kristina Garuoliene; Miguel Gomes; Katharine Harris; Alan Haycox; Harald Herholz; Krystyna Hviding; Saira Jan; Marija Kalaba; Christina Kvalheim; Ott Laius; Sven-Ake Lööv; Kamila Malinowska; Andrew Martin; Laura McCullagh; Fredrik Nilsson; Ken Paterson; Ulrich Schwabe; Gisbert Selke; Catherine Sermet; Steven Simoens; Dominik Tomek; Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski; Luka Voncina; Magdalena Wladysiuk; Menno van Woerkom; Durhane Wong-Rieger; Corrine Zara; Raghib Ali; Lars L Gustafsson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Thomas Morel; Francis Arickx; Gustaf Befrits; Paolo Siviero; Caroline van der Meijden; Entela Xoxi; Steven Simoens Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 4.123