Open AccessAIFA time-to-reimbursement: a comparison between the last two committees from 2015 to 2020
Author(s) -
Paola Raimondo,
Giorgio Casilli,
M. Isernia,
D. Lidonnici,
Roberto Ravasio,
Virginia Ronco,
Elena Lanati
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
global and regional health technology assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2283-5733
pISSN - 2284-2403
DOI - 10.33393/grhta.2020.2173
Subject(s) - reimbursement , agency (philosophy) , medicine , advisory committee , confidentiality , business , family medicine , political science , public administration , health care , law , philosophy , epistemology
Objective. To compare the time-to-reimbursement of the last two committees of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), respectively appointed in 2015 and in 2018.
Methods. The analysis was run through a specific internal database created by MA-Provider. The database was populated with information regarding European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved new drugs, including each step of the Italian Price and Reimbursement (P&R) process reported in the monthly outcomes of Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) and Price and Reimbursement Committee (CPR) meetings from September 2015 to April 2020.
Results. The 2015 and the 2018 committees have reimbursed respectively 39 and 28 drugs by comparing their initial 19 months of activity. Significant differences have been observed in negotiated economic conditions, in particular an increase in the number of drugs with confidential discount (2018-committee: 96.4% vs 2015-committee: 64.1%; p = 0.003) and a reduction in the application of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) (2018-committee: 10.7% vs 2015-committee: 33.3%; p = 0.036). The average duration of the P&R procedure managed by the 2018-committee has increased by 45 days compared to the 2015-committee (287 days vs 242 days; p = 0.071) and this trend of delay is associated to the active scientific/economic assessment phase by CTS and CPR (particularly by the latter) and not to administrative phases (e.g. Official Journal publications).
Conclusions. The observed differences between committees may be explained by the higher number of oncological and/or innovative drugs assessed by the 2018-committee (regarding the time delay, probably linked to greater difficulties in finding a win-win agreement able to satisfy both AIFA and Pharmaceutical Company).