Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/94370
Title: The implementation of managed entry agreements in Central and Eastern Europe : findings and implication
Authors: Ferrario, Alessandra
Araja, Diana
Bochenek, Tomasz
Catic, Tarik
Danko, David
Dimitrova, Maria
Furst, Jurij
Greičiūtė-Kuprijanov, Ieva
Hoxha, Iris
Jakupi, Arianit
Laidmäe, Erki
Löblová, Olga
Mardare, Ileana
Markovic-Pekovic, Vanda
Meshkov, Dmitry
Novakovic, Tanja
Petrova, Guenka
Pomorski, Maciej
Tomek, Dominik
Voncina, Luka
Haycox, Alan
Kanavos, Panos
Vella Bonanno, Patricia
Godman, Bryan
Keywords: Medical care -- Europe, Eastern -- Cost control
Drug accessibility
Medical care -- Europe, Central -- Cost control
Medical care surveys
Issue Date: 2017
Publisher: Adis International Ltd.
Citation: Ferrario, A., Arāja, D., Bochenek, T., Čatić, T., Dankó, D., Dimitrova, M., ... & Godman, B. (2017). The implementation of managed entry agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: findings and implications. Pharmacoeconomics, 35(12), 1271-1285.
Abstract: Background Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. Method We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Results Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, [1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATCA, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Conclusions Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.
URI: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/94370
Appears in Collections:Scholarly Works - FacHScHSM



Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.