Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective.Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective.Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability.Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

Are new models needed to optimise the utilisation of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems?Godman B 1,2,3 , Malmström RE 4 , Diogene E 5 , Gray A 6 , Jayathissa S 7 , Timoney A 8 , Acurcio FA 9,10 , Alkan A 11 , Brzezinska A 12 , Bucsics A 13 , Campbell S 14,15 AbstractIntroduction: Medicines have made an appreciable contribution to improving health. However, even high income countries are struggling to fund new premium-priced medicines. This will grow necessitating the development of new models to optimise their use. Objective: Review case histories among health authorities to improve the utilisation and expenditure on new medicines. Subsequently, use these to develop exemplar models and outline their implications. Challenges and proposed models: A number of issues and challenges have been identified including the limited innovation level of new medicines alongside increasing requested prices for their reimbursement especially for oncology, orphan diseases, diabetes and HCV. Models centre on the three pillars of pre-, peri, and post-launch including critical drug evaluation and multi-criteria models for valuing medicines for orphan diseases alongside potentially capping pharmaceutical expenditure Discussion: Proposed models which involve all key stakeholder groups are critical for the sustainability of healthcare systems or enhancing universal access. The models should help stimulate debate as well as restore trust between key stakeholder groups.

Drug shortages have been identified as a public health problem in an increasing number of countries. This can negatively impact on the quality and efficiency of patient care, as well as contribute to increases in the cost of treatment and the workload of health care providers. Shortages also raise ethical and political issues. The scientific evidence on drug shortages is still scarce, but many lessons can be drawn from cross-country analyses. The objective of this study was to characterize, compare, and evaluate the current systemic measures and legislative and organizational frameworks aimed at preventing or mitigating drug shortages within health care systems across a range of European and Western Asian countries. The study design was retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive, and observational. Information was gathered through a survey distributed among senior personnel from ministries of health, state medicines agencies, local health authorities, other health or pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement authorities, health insurance companies and academic institutions, with knowledge of the pharmaceutical markets in the 28 countries studied. Our study found that formal definitions of drug shortages currently exist in only a few countries. The characteristics of drug shortages, including their assortment, duration, frequency, and dynamics, were found to be variable and sometimes difficult to assess. Numerous information hubs were identified. Providing public access to information on drug shortages to the maximum possible extent is a prerequisite for performing more advanced studies on the problem and identifying solutions. Imposing public service obligations, providing the formal possibility to prescribe unlicensed medicines, and temporary bans on parallel exports are widespread measures. A positive finding of our study was the identification of numerous bottom-up initiatives and organizational frameworks aimed at preventing or mitigating drug shortages. The experiences and lessons drawn from these initiatives should be carefully evaluated, monitored, and presented to a wider international audience for careful appraisal. To be able to find solutions to the problem of drug shortages, there is an urgent need to develop a set of agreed definitions for drug shortages, as well as methodologies for their evaluation and monitoring. This is being progressed.

European countries with smaller populations can obtain substantial reductions in prices of generics versus originators. This was seen in Lithuania among classes with currently limited utilization versus Western European countries, as well as those with similar utilization patterns. In addition, matching price reductions for generics were seen among Western European countries. Overall, our findings demonstrate that it is possible for European countries with smaller populations to engineer low prices with manufacturers.

Introduction: There are appreciable concerns among European health authorities with growing expenditure on cancer medicines and issues of sustainability. The enhanced use of low cost generics could help. Aims: Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively document current and future arrangements regarding the pricing of generic cancer medicines across Europe, and whether these are indication specific, as well as how this translates into actual prices to provide future direction. Methodology: Mixed method approach with qualitative research among senior health authority personnel and their advisers. Quantitative research via health authority databases to ascertain current prices for oral cancer medicines that had lost their patent and the influence of population size and economics on prices. Results: 25 European countries participated. Currently we see (a) variable approaches to the pricing of generic cancer medicines, which will continue; (b) no concerns with substitution for oral generic cancer medicines; (c) substantial price reductions versus originators for generic capecitabine (up to-93.1%), generic imatinib (up to-97.8%) and generic temozolomide (up to-80.7%). Prices for oncology medicines are not indication specific, and are not affected by population size although influenced by pricing approaches. There have also been price increases for some nonpatented cancer medicines following manufacturer changes although now stabilising. Conclusion: The considerable price reductions seen for some generics means health authorities should further encourage the use of generic oncology medicines when they become available to fund increased volumes and new valued cancer medicines. Countries are also starting to address price increases for generics following changes in the manufacturer

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Payers are a major stakeholder in any considerations and initiatives concerning adaptive licensing of new medicinal products, also referred to as Medicines Adaptive Pathways to patients (MAPPs). Firstly, the scope and necessity of MAPPs need further scrutiny, especially with regard to the definition of unmet need. Conditional approval pathways already exist for new medicines for seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and only a limited number of new medicines are innovative. Secondly, MAPPs will result in new medicines on the market with limited evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Additional data are to be collected after approval. Consequently, adaptive pathways may increase the risk of exposing patients to ineffective or unsafe medicines. We have already seen medicines approved conventionally that subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe amongst a wider, more co-morbid population as well as medicines that could have been considered for approval under MAPPs but subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe in Phase III trials and were never licensed. Thirdly, MAPPs also put high demands on payers. Routine collection of patient level data is difficult with high transaction costs. It is not clear who will fund these. Other challenges for payers include shifts in the risk governance framework, implications for evaluation and HTA, increased complexity of setting prices, difficulty with ensuring equity in the allocation of resources, definition of responsibility and liability and implementation of stratified use. Exit strategies also need to be agreed in advance, including price reductions, rebates, or reimbursement withdrawals when price premiums are not justified. These issues and concerns will be discussed in detail including potential ways forward.

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), which include gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products and tissue-engineered products, are at the cutting edge of innovation and offer a major hope for various diseases for which there are limited or no therapeutic options. They have therefore been subject to considerable interest and debate. Following the European regulation on ATMPs, a consolidated regulatory framework for these innovative medicines has recently been established. Central to this framework is the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), comprising a multidisciplinary scientific expert committee, representing all EU member states and European Free Trade Association countries, as well as patient and medical associations. In this article, the CAT discusses some of the typical issues raised by developers of ATMPs, and highlights the opportunities for such companies and research groups to approach the EMA and the CAT as a regulatory advisor during development.