Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 3/2015

Open Access 01-03-2015 | Original Research Article

Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework

Authors: Mike Paulden, Tania Stafinski, Devidas Menon, Christopher McCabe

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 3/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The rate of development of new orphan drugs continues to grow. As a result, reimbursing orphan drugs on an exceptional basis is increasingly difficult to sustain from a health system perspective. An understanding of the value that societies attach to providing orphan drugs at the expense of other health technologies is now recognised as an important input to policy debates.

Objectives

The aim of this work was to scope the social value arguments that have been advanced relating to the reimbursement of orphan drugs, and to locate these within a coherent decision-making framework to aid reimbursement decisions in the presence of limited healthcare resources.

Methods

A scoping review of the peer reviewed and grey literature was undertaken, consisting of seven phases: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting, extracting and tabulating data; (5) analyzing data; (6) consulting relevant experts; and (7) presenting results. The points within decision processes where the identified value arguments would be incorporated were then located. This mapping was used to construct a framework characterising the distinct role of each value in informing decision making.

Results

The scoping review identified 19 candidate decision factors, most of which can be characterised as either value-bearing or ‘opportunity cost’-determining, and also a number of value propositions and pertinent sources of preference information. We were able to synthesize these into a coherent decision-making framework.

Conclusion

Our framework may be used to structure policy discussions and to aid transparency about the values underlying reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. These values ought to be consistently applied to all technologies and populations affected by the decision.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Haffner ME. Adopting orphan drugs—two dozen years of treating rare diseases. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:445–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Braun MM, Farag-El-Massah S, Xu K, Coté TR. Emergence of orphan drugs in the United States: a quantitative assessment of the first 25 years. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:519–22.PubMed
3.
Dunoyer M. Accelerating access to treatments for rare diseases. Nature. 2011;10:475–6.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reeves A, McKee M, Basu S, Stuckler D. The political economy of austerity and healthcare: cross-national analysis of expenditure changes in 27 European nations 1995–2011. Health Policy. 2014;115:1–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Stafinski T, Menon D, Davis C, McCabe C. Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe. Clin Outcomes Res. 2011;3:117–86.CrossRef
9.
Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe C. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:475–95.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Drummond M, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:335–40.
12.
Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C, Philippon DJ. To fund or not to fund: development of a decision-making framework for the coverage of new health technologies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:771–80.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Hutchings A, Schey C, Dutton R, Achana F, Antonov K. Estimating the budget impact of orphan drugs in Sweden and France 2013–2020. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:22.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
14.
Schey C, Milanova T, Hutchings A. Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010–2020. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;27:62.CrossRef
15.
Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, Simoens S. Paying for the Orphan Drug System: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease treatments? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:74.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
16.
Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J. Synthesising research evidence. In: Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N, editors. Methods for studying the delivery and organisation of health services. London: Routledge; 2001: p. 188–220.
17.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
18.
McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ. 2005;331:1016–9.
19.
McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:733–44.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.CrossRef
21.
22.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Anaylsing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.
23.
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: in search of a method. Evaluation. 2002;8:157–81.CrossRef
24.
Bryman A, Burgess R. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 232.CrossRef
25.
Oliver S. Making research more useful: integrating different perspectives and different methods. In: Oliver S, Peersman G, editors. Useful Research for Effective Health Promotion. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2001. p. 167–79.
26.
Barrett P, Alagely A, Topol E. Cystic fibrosis in an era of genomically guided therapy. Hum Mol Genet. 2012;21:R66–71.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Clarke JT. Is the current approach to reviewing new drugs condemning the victims of rare diseases to death? A call for a national orphan drug review policy. Can Med Assoc J. 2006;174:189–90.CrossRef
28.
Clarke J, Bell C, Coyle D, Stevenson H, Evans G, Martin M, et al. A policy framework for funding drugs for rare diseases. Value Health. 2009;12(7):A243.
29.
Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, Culyer AJ, McCabe C, Walker S, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ. 2008;336:251–4.
30.
Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. Budget impact analysis of orphan drugs in Belgium: estimates from 2008 to 2013. J Med Econ. 2010;13:295–301.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Desser AS. Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: a survey of preferences of Norwegian doctors. Soc Sci Med. 2013;94:56–62.
32.
Dickson P, Pariser A, Groft S, Ishihara R, McNeil D, Tagle D, et al. Research challenges in central nervous system manifestations of inborn errors of metabolism. Mol Genet Metab. 2011;102:326–38.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
33.
Drakulich A. Global healthcare on the ground: NIH aims to help treat 200 rare diseases. Pharm Technol. 2011;35:22.
34.
Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:36–42.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Gupta S. Rare diseases : Canada’s “research orphans”. Open Med. 2012;6:23–7.
37.
Hughes D, Tunnage B, Yeo S. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM Int J Med. 2005;98:829–36.CrossRef
38.
Hutchings A, Ethgen O, Schmitt C, Rollet P. Defining elements of value for rare disease treatments. Value Health. 2012;15(4):A31.
39.
Joppi R, Bertele’ V, Garattini S. Orphan drugs, orphan diseases. The first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:1009–24.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Kanavos P, Nicod E. What is wrong with orphan drug policies? Suggestions for ways forward. Value Health. 2012;15:1182–4.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA. 2011;305:2320–6.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Largent EA, Pearson SD. Which orphans will find a home? The rule of rescue in resource allocation for rare diseases. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:27–34.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Laupacis A. Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases: a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;16:e282–4.
44.
Liang BA, Mackey T. Reforming off-label promotion to enhance orphan disease treatment. Science. 2010;327:273–4.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Luisetti M, Balfour-Lynn IM, Johnson SR, Miravitlles M, Strange C, Trapnell BC, et al. Perspectives for improving the evaluation and access of therapies for rare lung diseases in Europe. Respir Med. 2012;106:759–68.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Matthews J, Glass L. The effect of market-based economic factors on the adoption of orphan drugs across multiple countries. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2013;47:226–34.CrossRef
47.
Mavris M, Le Cam Y. Involvement of patient organisations in research and development of orphan drugs for rare diseases in Europe. Mol Syndromol. 2012;3:237–42.PubMedCentralPubMed
48.
49.
Meekings KN, Williams CSM, Arrowsmith JE. Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17:660–4.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Mentzakis E, Stefanowska P, Hurley J. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6:405–33.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Michel M, Toumi M. Access to orphan drugs in Europe: current and future issues. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12:23–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Moberly T. Rationing and access to orphan drugs. Pharm J. 2005;275:569–70.
53.
Owen A, Spinks J, Meehan A, Robb T, Hardy M, Kwasha D, et al. A new model to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of orphan and highly specialised drugs following listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: the Bosentan Patient Registry. J Med Econ. 2008;11:235–43.PubMed
54.
Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Simoens S. Drugs for rare diseases: influence of orphan designation status on price. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9:275–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Picavet E, Cassiman D, Simoens S. Evaluating and improving orphan drug regulations in Europe: a Delphi policy study. Health Policy. 2012;108:1–9.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Pinxten W, Denier Y, Dooms M, Cassiman J, Dierickx K. A fair share for the orphans: ethical guidelines for a fair distribution of resources within the bounds of the 10-year-old European Orphan Drug Regulation. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:148–53.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Prevot J, Watters D. HTA’s and access to rare diseases therapies: the view from the PID community. Pharm Policy Law. 2011;11:177–81.
58.
59.
60.
Sullivan SD. The promise of specialty pharmaceuticals: are they worth the price? J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14:S3–6.PubMed
61.
Valverde J-L. Editorial. Pharm Policy Law. 2011;13:115–6.
62.
Wild C, Hintringer K, Nachtnebel A. Orphan drugs in oncology. Pharm Policy Law. 2011;13:223–32.
63.
Winquist E, Bell CM, Clarke JTR, Evans G, Martin J, Sabharwal M, et al. An evaluation framework for funding drugs for rare diseases. Value Health. 2012;15:982–6.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, Claxton K, Buxton M, Akehurst R, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:56–8.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer AJ. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011;20:2–15.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. York: Centre for Health Economics, York University; 2013. Report No. 81.
67.
Endrei D, Molics B, Ágoston I. Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: real-world experiences from Hungary. Value Health. 2014;17(4):487–9.
68.
Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, Campbell D, Bryan S. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: criteria based resource allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
69.
Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16:1163–9.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on nice, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22:948–64.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework
Authors
Mike Paulden
Tania Stafinski
Devidas Menon
Christopher McCabe
Publication date
01-03-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0235-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

PharmacoEconomics 3/2015 Go to the issue

Leading Article

Resource Modelling: The Missing Piece of the HTA Jigsaw?

Review Article

Is There an Economic Rationale for Cancer Drugs to Have a Separate Reimbursement Review Process for Resource Allocation Purposes?

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Drugs for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention in German Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Original Research Article

Costs of Health Resource Utilization Among HIV-Positive Individuals in British Columbia, Canada: Results From a Population-Level Study

Review Article

Alteplase for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; an Evidence Review Group Perspective