Payers view on risk sharing and outcomes based agreements...?

Dear All,

in order to prepare for a conference talk that I will be giving next week in Zurich I asked the network via linkedin: "I would be interested in hearing your thoughts/comments on how payers view risk sharing and outcomes based agreements?"

Over the last week I have received a lot and valuable comments and therefore would like to thank all of you who provided an answer! Since this is a hot topic and many of you wrote me that you are actually wondering about the same issue, I post all answers below for the broader audience.

best wishes

"I would be interested in hearing your thoughts/comments on how payers view risk sharing and outcomes based agreements?"

Answers received (for privacy reasons all names have been erased)

Payers may react positively if they disagree with your value hypothesis and wish proof in daily practice. They may react negatively if they feel no need e.g. one has always reimbursed non responders. Administrative burden is another important element that has to be traded off versus why not just a lower price?

My experience is that it very much depends on the therapy area/drug in question. Risk sharing agreements are very good for expensive drugs that has been approved by early data that has not yet shown its full potential. New oncology drugs are a good example of this I agree with xxx above that the burden of administration should be taken into consideration.

We have found in our work in this area that these schemes are only meant for a small minority of situations, and that over-emphasis on innovative risk sharing pre-launch may distract from basic focus on clinical value shaping and appropriate planning for traditional payer agreements.

In Spain I have tried to settle an agreement with one of our regions. We managed to reach a consensus about the value proposition, but it was impossible to agree on: 1.- Which Health Authority has to sign the agreement: the manager of the hospital, the Regional Health Authority, the National Health Authority. The payor or the provider? 2.- What to measure: subrogate or final variables, clinical or patient reported outcomes 3.- What subpopulation of patients: as SmPC, other. Should the contract be the same in all populations. 4.- Length of the agreement: first years to market or all. 5.- Who will measure the results of the drug?, a CRO, they or us? 6.- Should the agreement be public?

Ulf I have experience of both outcome guarantee and free access period based programs in the UK market. As xxx states, one of the big challenges with outcome based approaches is the ability of healthcare systems to capture the necessary data and also the costs of administration. Despite the challenges outcome based approaches are I believe inherently more appealing to payors as they mitigate risk to a greater extent than free access periods and sponsors have an inbuilt interest in ensuring patients maximize received benefits. In addition, outcome based approaches enable capture of additional, observational data which may support broader market access. If one is going down the road of simple, free access approaches I fully concur with xxx comments about what payors are looking for,ie.: - best cost savings - minimal administerial workload - transparency - aligned with clinical pathways kind regards xxx"

Ulf A couple of additional thoughts on the practicalities: - involve representatives from payor organizations in the development of any schemes - academic involvement can add significantly to the quality and acceptability of schemes, especially outcome based types kind regards xxx

I am seeing a more proactive request for this type of agreements from Spanish Regional Government payers, mainly when talking about very expensive drugs and with a cost-containment exercise in mind. There are already some examples in some regions, although details are kept confidential. However, as it has been mentioned, in my experience, they do not really know how to go about it: they can and do protocolisation of treatment regimens in certain subpopulation groups but do not know what or how to measure outcomes, clinical and economic. I regard this as a big opportunity for industry and payers. Personalized medicines offers a new, easier ground also.

Generally I think payers would like to see them happen more frequently but it is a treacherous pathway to take because of the measurement difficulties over the agreement (the outcomes part if you like) - the area is certainly evolving.

From previous discussion with payers on risk sharing, payers have often told me that they would like to see the true cost savings and/or benefit of getting involved in such a scheme. If the administrative burden and cost outweigh the savings then it is unlikely to generate any interest

…but I'm seeing an increasing number of job specs looking for "risk sharing / pay for performance" type roles.

We know NICE are all for it - in the revised STA submission form, there is even a place for such proposals. Also, in the new process, a risk-share has to be introduced at the time of submission. To date, people would wait to receive a negative ACD before suggesting a risk-share now they have to do it at the start.

...this is highly variable depending on the market. Some markets, such as France, already have financial based schemes in place (payback agreements), and therefore have little interest in outcomes based agreements. Others, are more open to the concept. However, a very important challenge is whether or not the payer has access to the necessary data to execute a risk sharing agreement - do they have the patient level information to be able to adjudicate the agreement later on? Payers, like everyone, are interested in agreements that: 1) Save them the most amount of money 2) Are very transparent (low risk) 3) Involve the least amount of administrative work

…Risk sharing agreements are very good for expensive drugs that has been approved by early data that has not yet shown its full potential. New oncology drugs are a good example of this….

don't have the answer but having the same question…For the time being, we have had a variety of failure and success building those kind of agreements with EU payers …

…..My views on usage of outcomes based agreement would depend very much on the nature of services contracted and market dynamics.

No comments: