Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?

  • Marianne Klemp (a1), Katrine B. Frønsdal (a1) and Karen Facey (a2)

Abstract

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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Adams, CP, Brantner, VV. Spending on new drug development. Health Econ. 2010;19:130141.
2. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical benefits scheme. http://www.pbs.gov.au/html/industry/static/how_to_list_on_the_pbs/elements_of_the_listing_process/guidelines_for_deeds_of_agreement (accessed June 2010).
3. Bell, KJ, Irwig, L, March, LM, et al. Should response rules be used to decide continued subsidy of very expensive drugs? A checklist for decision makers. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;1:99105.
4. Briggs, A, Ritchie, K, Fenwick, E, Chalkidou, K, Littlejohns, P. Access with evidence development in the UK: Past experience, current initiatives and future potential. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:163170.
5. Carlson, JJ, Sullivan, SD, Garrison, LP, Neumann, PJ, Veenstraa, DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96:179190.
6. Daniels, N, Sabin, JE. Accountability for reasonableness: An update. BMJ. 2008;337:a1850.
7. Eichler, HG, Bloechl-Daum, B, Abadie, E, et al. Relative efficacy of drugs: An emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:277291.
8. Frønsdal, KB, Facey, K, Klemp, M, et al. Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:309318.
9. Gormley, GJ, Stoner, E, Bruskewitz, RC, et al. The effect of finasteridein men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Finasteride Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:11851191.
10. High Level Pharmaceutical Forum 2005-2008. Final conclusions and recommendations of the High Level Pharmaceutical Forum. http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/docs/final_conclusions_en.pdf (accessed March 2010).
11. Hutton, J, Trueman, P, Henshall, C. Coverage with evidence development: An examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;2:425435.
12. MacLeod, S, Mitton, C. We know accurately only when we know little. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:13.
13. McCabe, C, Stafinski, T, Edlin, R, Menon, D, for and on behalf of the Banff AED. Summit. Access with evidence development schemes: A framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:110.
14. Mohr, PE, Tunis, SR. Access with evidence development: The US experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:153162.
15. Paul, SM, Mytelka, DS, Dunwiddie, CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:203214.
16. Rosenfeld, PJ, Brown, DM, HeierJS, et al. JS, et al. MARINA Study Group. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:14191431.
17. Sox, HC, Greenfield, S. Comparative effectiveness research: A report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann. Intern Med. 2009;151:203205.
18. Stafinski, T, McCabe, CJ, Menon, D. Funding the unfundable: Mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:129.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Klemp supplementary material
Tables 1 and 2

 Unknown (14 KB)
14 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed