Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer’s perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Background: There are potential conflicts between authorities and companies to fund new premium priced drugs especially where there are safety and/or budget concerns. Dabigatran, a new oral anticoagulant for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), exemplifies this issue. Whilst new effective treatments are needed, there are issues in the elderly with dabigatran due to variable drug concentrations, no known antidote and dependence on renal elimination. Published studies have shown dabigatran to be cost-effective but there are budget concerns given the prevalence of AF. There are also issues with potentially re-designing anticoagulant services. This has resulted in activities across countries to better manage its use. Objective: To (i) review authority activities in over 30 countries and regions, (ii) use the findings to develop new models to better manage the entry of new drugs, and (iii) review the implications for all major stakeholder groups. Methodology: Descriptive review and appraisal of activities regarding dabigatran and the development of guidance for groups through an iterative process. Results: There has been a plethora of activities among authorities to manage the prescribing of dabigatran including extensive pre-launch activities, risk sharing arrangements, prescribing restrictions, and monitoring of prescribing post-launch. Reimbursement has been denied in some countries due to concerns with its budget impact and/or excessive bleeding. Development of a new model and future guidance is proposed to better manage the entry of new drugs, centering on three pillars of pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities. Conclusion: Models for introducing new drugs are essential to optimize their prescribing especially where there are concerns. Without such models, new drugs may be withdrawn prematurely and/or struggle for funding.

Drug budget and prescription control measures are implemented regionally in Germany, meaning that the uptake of pharmaceuticals, including biosimilars, can vary by region. We examine regional market dynamics of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitor originators and biosimilars in Germany and studied the influence of biosimilar policies on these dynamics. This study is based on: (1) a literature review in which German biosimilar policies are identified, (2) the analysis of dispensing data (2010–2018) for the class of TNFα inhibitors, and (3) ten semi-structured interviews investigating prescribers’ and insurers’ views on factors potentially influencing biosimilar uptake. The analysis of biosimilar market shares of infliximab and etanercept revealed wide variations across the 17 German Regional Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Accredited Physicians (PA regions). Quantitative analyses indicated that biosimilar market shares for infliximab and etanercept were significantly lower in former East Germany when compared to former West Germany regions. Through qualitative interview analyses, this study showed that the use of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars across Germany is primarily influenced by (1) the regional-level implementation of biosimilar quotas and the presence of monitoring/sanctioning mechanisms to ensure adherence to these quotas, (2) the different insurer-manufacturer discount contracts, and (3) gainsharing arrangements established at the insurer-prescriber level.

Introduction: In January 2018 the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA): ‘Proposal for a Regulation on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU’. A number of stakeholders, including some Member States, welcomed this initiative as it was considered to improve collaboration, reduce duplication and improve efficiency; there were however a number of concerns including its legal basis, the establishment of a single managing authority, the preservation of national jurisdiction over HTA decision making and the voluntary/mandatory uptake of joint assessments by Member States. Areas covered: This paper presents the consolidated views and considerations on the original Proposal as set by the European Commission of a number of policy makers, payers, experts from pricing and reimbursement authorities and academics from across Europe. Expert commentary: The Proposal has since been extensively discussed at Council and while good progress has been achieved, there are still divergent positions. The European Parliament gave a number of recommendations for amendments. If the Proposal is approved, it is important that balanced, improved outcome is achieved for all stakeholders. If not approved, the extensive contribution and progress attained should be sustained and preserved, and the best alternative solutions found.