 Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and LimitationsCarolina Zampirolli Dias (),
Brian Godman (),
Ludmila Peres Gargano (),
Pâmela Santos Azevedo (),
Marina Morgado Garcia (),
Maurílio Souza Cazarim (),
Laís Lessa Neiva Pantuzza (),
Nelio Gomes Ribeiro-Junior (),
André Luiz Pereira (),
Marcus Carvalho Borin (),
Isabella Figueiredo Zuppo (),
Roberto Iunes (),
Tomas Pippo (),
Renata Curi Hauegen (),
Carlos Vassalo (),
Tracey-Lea Laba (),
Steven Simoens (),
Sergio Márquez (),
Carolina Gomez (),
Luka Voncina (),
Gisbert W. Selke (),
Livio Garattini (),
Hye-Young Kwon (),
Jolanta Gulbinovic (),
Aneta Lipinska (),
Maciej Pomorski (),
Lindsay McClure (),
Jurij Fürst (),
Rosana Gambogi (),
Carla Hernandez Ortiz (),
Vânia Cristina Canuto Santos (),
Denizar Vianna Araújo (),
Vânia Eloisa Araujo (),
Francisco de Assis Acurcio (),
Juliana Alvares-Teodoro () and
Augusto Afonso Guerra-Junior ()
PharmacoEconomics, 2020, vol. 38, issue 11, No 3, 1165-1185 Abstract: Abstract Background and Objective Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries. Methods An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was ‘What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?’ This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. Results Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. Conclusions We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs. Date: 2020 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00943-1 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00943-1 Access Statistics for this article PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.