Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers.

OBJECTIVE To identify, categorize and examine performance-based health outcomes reimbursement schemes for medical technology. METHODS We performed a review of performance-based health outcomes reimbursement schemes over the past 10 years (7/98-010/09) using publicly available databases, web and grey literature searches, and input from healthcare reimbursement experts. We developed a taxonomy of scheme types by inductively organizing the schemes identified according to the timing, execution, and health outcomes measured in the schemes. RESULTS Our search yielded 34 coverage with evidence development schemes, 10 conditional treatment continuation schemes, and 14 performance-linked reimbursement schemes. The majority of schemes are in Europe and Australia, with an increasing number in Canada and the U.S. CONCLUSION These schemes have the potential to alter the reimbursement and pricing landscape for medical technology, but significant challenges, including high transaction costs and insufficient information systems, may limit their long-term impact. Future studies regarding experiences and outcomes of implemented schemes are necessary.

[1]  K. Chalkidou,et al.  Coverage with evidence development: A very good beginning, but much to be done. Commentary to Hutton et al. , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[2]  Yoav Ben-Shlomo,et al.  Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: two year results of clinical cohort study with historical comparator , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  Hartmut Goldschmidt,et al.  Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  S. Chapman,et al.  Outcomes guarantee for lipid-lowering drugs: results from a novel approach to risk sharing in primary care , 2004 .

[5]  Richard Pazdur,et al.  Accelerated approval of oncology products: a decade of experience. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  J. Bryant,et al.  Bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma patients. , 2009, Health technology assessment.

[7]  S. Tunis,et al.  Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's 'coverage with evidence development'. , 2006, Health affairs.

[8]  R. Weintraub,et al.  Public Funding of Bosentan for the Treatment of Pulmonary Artery Hypertension in Australia , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[9]  No cure, no pay , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  J. Colquitt,et al.  Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2008, Health technology assessment.

[11]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  The Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme Monitoring Study – early results and lessons for the future , 2009, BMC neurology.

[12]  D. Chadwick,et al.  Shared scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis :Dealing with uncertainties about cost effectiveness of treatments is difficult problem , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Peter Littlejohns,et al.  Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. , 2007, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[14]  Stephen Chapman,et al.  Setting up an outcomes guarantee for pharmaceuticals: new approach to risk sharing in primary care , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  S. Fishbane,et al.  The effect of a change in epoetin alfa reimbursement policy on anemia outcomes in hemodialysis patients , 2005, Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis.

[16]  B. Jönsson Relative effectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market , 2011, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[17]  M. Ahern,et al.  Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme criteria for the use of tumour necrosis factor‐α inhibitors in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Australia: are they evidence based? , 2006, Internal medicine journal.

[18]  Christine Y. Lu,et al.  The funding and use of high-cost medicines in Australia: the example of anti-rheumatic biological medicines , 2007 .

[19]  G. Frampton,et al.  Evidence Review Group Report commissioned by the NHS R&D HTA Programme on behalf of NICE , 2009 .

[20]  A. Anell,et al.  Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden , 2005, The European Journal of Health Economics.