PCN148 Review of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Recommendations for Anti-Cancer Agents Across Multiple Drug-Indication Combinations

Risk-Sharing Agreements in the EU: A Systematic Review of Major Trends

“…HTA agencies became more important as authors such as McCabe et al [ 4 ], Lucas et al [ 39 ], and Chawla et al [ 40 ] discussed how manufacturers increased their production of drugs that surpassed the acceptable cost-effectiveness measurements (e.g. cost per QALY or ICER) even though the main reasoning behind rejection by NICE was a drug with an ICER >£30,000 per QALY.…”

“…cost per QALY or ICER) even though the main reasoning behind rejection by NICE was a drug with an ICER >£30,000 per QALY. Chawla et al [ 40 ] reported that HTA agencies usually have two options to reach an agreement about a drug’s price and reimbursement status: (1) to reduce the initial cost of the treatment (financial discount) to meet the cost-effectiveness ratio and (2) to enter into a PBRSA (outcomes-based) to overcome any uncertainty the payer may have regarding the product’s real-world performance. Although Chawla et al [ 40 ] suggested that RSAs do not guarantee a positive recommendation by HTA agencies, other authors agreed that the increase in the use of RSAs, especially for new oncology therapies, appeared to indicate that reimbursement was still very possible as long as both parties share the financial risks while the company has time to demonstrate the value of their drug [ 41 – 45 ].…”