Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements for Pharmaceutical Products in the United States: A Systematic Review

Source:
Medicines Management Collection
Publisher:
Journal Of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
Publication date:
01 October 2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Value for money is a growing necessity in today's U.S. health care system in which drug spending is expected to increase by an average rate of 6.7% yearly through 2025. In response to uncertainty about real-world clinical and economic outcomes for many drugs, health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have implemented various contracts and arrangements with drug manufacturers that can collectively be described as performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs). Little is known about U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs to describe (a) trends over time and (b) key aspects including outcome measures and terms of arrangements between stakeholders. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE (January 1, 1946-April 1, 2017), Embase (January 1, 1988-April 1, 2017), and the grey literature (up to April 1, 2017) to identify publicly disclosed PBRSAs. Articles and conference abstracts were included if they were published in English and described a U.S.-specific PBRSA for a drug. Articles and conference abstracts were excluded if they only described a PBRSA similar to a money-back guarantee to patients. They were also excluded if they only described a PBRSA between a PBM and a health insurer in which the latter would receive a discount for patients nonadherent to a drug. Results were summarized as counts and percentages. RESULTS: From the literature review, 26 publicly disclosed PBRSAs were identified. Of these, 16 (62%) were announced or initiated from 2015 to 2017, and 10 (38%) were announced or initiated from 1997 to 2012. Thirteen (50%) PBRSAs involved cardiometabolic indications; 5 (19%) involved oncology indications; and 8 (31%) involved other indications. Categorized by health insurer or PBM, 10 (38%) PBRSAs involved large multistate insurers; 5 (19%) involved the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 7 (27%) involved regional insurers; 3 (12%) involved PBMs; and 1 (4%) involved multiple unspecified insurers. Regarding the most active drug manufacturers, Amgen initiated 5 (19%) PBRSAs and Novartis initiated 4 (15%). Relative to the initial FDA approval of a treatment, 15 (58%) PBRSAs were announced or initiated within 5 years, and 11 (42%) were announced or initiated more than 5 years later. For data collection, electronic medical record (EMR) data would have been an appropriate source for 12 (46%) PBRSAs; claims data would have been an appropriate source for 11 (42%) PBRSAs; and EMR and claims data would have been appropriate sources for 2 (8%) PBRSAs; no description of the outcome measures was available for 1 (4%) PBRSA. CONCLUSIONS: The number of publicly disclosed U.S.-specific PBRSAs for drugs has increased over the years. This review's findings confirm the interest of stakeholders in such arrangements and their confidence in the use of the selected outcome measures. Each PBRSA represents a timely collaboration among stakeholders to provide access to a drug while generating evidence to better elucidate its clinical and economic value. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this systematic review. Yu is an employee and shareholder of Allergan. Chin reports personal fees from Formulary Resources. Oh and Farias have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Yu, along with the other authors. All authors contributed to the collection and interpretation of the data. The manuscript was written by Yu, Chin, Oh, and Farias and revised by Yu and Chin, along with the other authors.