Introduction: The uptake of complex technologies and platforms has resulted in several challenges in the pricing and reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals. To address these challenges, plenty of concepts have already been described in the scientific literature about innovative value judgment or payment models, which are either (1) remaining theoretical; or (2) applied only in pilots with limited impact on patient access; or (3) applied so heterogeneously in many different countries that it prevents the health care industry from meeting expectations of HTA bodies and health care payers in the evidence requirements or offerings in different jurisdictions.
Areas Covered: This paper provides perspectives on how to reduce the heterogeneity of pharmaceutical payment models across European countries in five areas, including 1) extended evaluation frameworks, 2) performance-based risk-sharing agreements, 3) pooled procurement for low volume or urgent technologies, 4) alternative access schemes, and 5) delayed payment models for technologies with high upfront costs.
Expert Opinion: Whilst pricing and reimbursement decisions will remain a competence of EU member states, there is a need for alignment of European pharmaceutical payment model components in critical areas with the ultimate objective of improving the equitable access of European patients to increasingly complex pharmaceutical technologies.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2282680 | DOI Listing |
Diabetologia
January 2025
MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Aims/hypothesis: UK standard care for type 2 diabetes is structured diabetes education, with no effects on HbA, small, short-term effects on weight and low uptake. We evaluated whether remotely delivered tailored diabetes education combined with commercial behavioural weight management is cost-effective compared with current standard care in helping people with type 2 diabetes to lower their blood glucose, lose weight, achieve remission and improve cardiovascular risk factors.
Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, randomised, parallel two-group trial.
Bone Joint Res
January 2025
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Aims: While cementless fixation offers potential advantages over cemented fixation, such as a shorter operating time, concerns linger over its higher cost and increased risk of periprosthetic fractures. If the risk of fracture can be forecasted, it would aid the shared decision-making process related to cementless stems. Our study aimed to develop and validate predictive models of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) necessitating revision and reoperation after elective total hip arthroplasty (THA).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Surg Res
January 2025
Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
Introduction: Mounting financial pressures on academic institutions highlight the need to understand the effect on outcomes from trainee involvement in cardiac surgery. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between cardiothoracic fellows and clinical and financial outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Methods: Data for all patients from 2017 to 2022 at a single institution who underwent nonemergent, isolated, open CABG were included in the study, with patients grouped by whether there was fellow operative participation.
JAMA Netw Open
January 2025
America's Physician Groups, Washington, DC.
Importance: Many physician groups are in 2-sided risk payment arrangements with Medicare Advantage plans (at-risk MA). Analysis of quality and health resource use under such arrangements may inform ongoing Medicare policy concerning payment and service delivery.
Objective: To compare quality and efficiency measures under 2 payment models: at-risk MA and fee-for-service (FFS) MA.
Am J Sports Med
January 2025
Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Background: There has been an increased interest in meniscus preservation over the last decade. Several risk factors for the failure of meniscal repair have been identified. However, the timing of meniscal repair has not been extensively assessed in the literature, and there is currently no high-quality evidence on the optimal timing of performing meniscal repair after an injury with regard to outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!