Price and reimbursement of advanced therapeutic medicinal products in Europe: are assessment and appraisal diverging from expert recommendations?

Background: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent an important cornerstone for innovation in healthcare. However, uncertainty on the value, the high average cost per patient and their one-shot nature has raised a debate on their assessment and appraisal process for pricing and reimbursement (P&R) purposes. This debate led experts providing for recommendations on this topic. Our primary objective is to investigate the ATMPs P&R process in the main fve European countries and to understand if this process is consistent with published P&R expert recommendations. We also investigated the current ATMP pipelines to understand if future ATMPs will create challenges for their P&R process. Methods: P&R framework for ATMPs in the European Major fve (EU5) countries was investigated through a literature search on PubMed, institutional websites of National Health Authorities and grey literature. The ATMPs pipeline database was populated from a clinical trial database (clinicaltrials.gov), relying on inclusion and exclusion criteria retrieved from the literature. Results: Reimbursement status of ATMPs is diferent across the EU5 countries, with the exception of CAR-Ts which are reimbursed in all countries. Standard P&R process in place for other medicinal products is extended to ATMPs, with the exception of some cases in Germany. List prices, where available, are high and, tend to be aligned across countries. Outcome-based Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) have been extensively used for ATMPs. Extra-funds for hospitals managing ATMPs were provided only in Germany and, as additional fund per episode, in France. The accreditation process of hospitals for ATMPs management was in most countries managed by the national authorities. As far as ATMPs pipeline is concerned, ATMPs in development are mostly targeting non-rare diseases. Conclusions: Expert recommendations for ATMPs P&R were partially applied: the role of outcome-based MEAs has increased and the selection process of the centres authorized to use these treatments has been enhanced; additional funding for ATMPs management to accredited centres has not been completely considered and annuity payment and broader perspective in cost considerations are far from being put in place. These recommendations should be considered for future P&R negotiations to pursue rational resource allocation and deal with budget constraints

Background: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent an important cornerstone for innovation in healthcare. However, uncertainty on the value, the high average cost per patient and their one-shot nature has raised a debate on their assessment and appraisal process for pricing and reimbursement (P&R) purposes. This debate led experts providing for recommendations on this topic. Our primary objective is to investigate the ATMPs P&R process in the main fve European countries and to understand if this process is consistent with published P&R expert recommendations. We also investigated the current ATMP pipelines to understand if future ATMPs will create challenges for their P&R process. Methods: P&R framework for ATMPs in the European Major fve (EU5) countries was investigated through a literature search on PubMed, institutional websites of National Health Authorities and grey literature. The ATMPs pipeline database was populated from a clinical trial database (clinicaltrials.gov), relying on inclusion and exclusion criteria retrieved from the literature. Results: Reimbursement status of ATMPs is diferent across the EU5 countries, with the exception of CAR-Ts which are reimbursed in all countries. Standard P&R process in place for other medicinal products is extended to ATMPs, with the exception of some cases in Germany. List prices, where available, are high and, tend to be aligned across countries. Outcome-based Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) have been extensively used for ATMPs. Extra-funds for hospitals managing ATMPs were provided only in Germany and, as additional fund per episode, in France. The accreditation process of hospitals for ATMPs management was in most countries managed by the national authorities. As far as ATMPs pipeline is concerned, ATMPs in development are mostly targeting non-rare diseases. Conclusions: Expert recommendations for ATMPs P&R were partially applied: the role of outcome-based MEAs has increased and the selection process of the centres authorized to use these treatments has been enhanced; additional funding for ATMPs management to accredited centres has not been completely considered and annuity payment and broader perspective in cost considerations are far from being put in place. These recommendations should be considered for future P&R negotiations to pursue rational resource allocation and deal with budget constraints