TY - JOUR
T1 - Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements
T2 - Chances and Limitations
AU - Zampirolli Dias, Carolina
AU - Godman, Brian
AU - Gargano, Ludmila Peres
AU - Azevedo, Pâmela Santos
AU - Garcia, Marina Morgado
AU - Souza Cazarim, Maurílio
AU - Pantuzza, Laís Lessa Neiva
AU - Ribeiro-Junior, Nelio Gomes
AU - Pereira, André Luiz
AU - Borin, Marcus Carvalho
AU - de Figueiredo Zuppo, Isabella
AU - Iunes, Roberto
AU - Pippo, Tomas
AU - Hauegen, Renata Curi
AU - Vassalo, Carlos
AU - Laba, Tracey Lea
AU - Simoens, Steven
AU - Márquez, Sergio
AU - Gomez, Carolina
AU - Voncina, Luka
AU - Selke, Gisbert W.
AU - Garattini, Livio
AU - Kwon, Hye Young
AU - Gulbinovic, Jolanta
AU - Lipinska, Aneta
AU - Pomorski, Maciej
AU - McClure, Lindsay
AU - Fürst, Jurij
AU - Gambogi, Rosana
AU - Ortiz, Carla Hernandez
AU - Canuto Santos, Vânia Cristina
AU - Araújo, Denizar Vianna
AU - Araujo, Vânia Eloisa
AU - Acurcio, Francisco de Assis
AU - Alvares-Teodoro, Juliana
AU - Guerra-Junior, Augusto Afonso
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - Background and Objective: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries. Methods: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was ‘What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?’ This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. Results: Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. Conclusions: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.
AB - Background and Objective: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries. Methods: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was ‘What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?’ This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. Results: Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. Conclusions: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088815830&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s40273-020-00943-1
DO - 10.1007/s40273-020-00943-1
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32734573
AN - SCOPUS:85088815830
SN - 1170-7690
VL - 38
SP - 1165
EP - 1185
JO - PharmacoEconomics
JF - PharmacoEconomics
IS - 11
ER -