Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022 Jul;20(4):501-524. doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00714-9. Epub 2022 Apr 4.
The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.
To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.
A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.
One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna, Kymriah, Yescarta, Zynteglo Zolgensma and Strimvelis, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah and Yescarta. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM.
Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.
描述为“个性化医疗”(PM)的医疗干预措施的数量正在迅速增加。随着医疗保健系统努力决定是否为 PM 创新提供资金,目前尚不清楚在这种情况下适用哪种融资和报销模式。
综述 PM 的融资和报销模式,总结其主要特征,并描述它们是否可以影响 PM 的发展和采用。
在 Medline、Embase、Web of Science 和 Econlit 中进行文献检索,以确定 2009 年至 2021 年间以英文发表的研究,并检索 2009 年前发表的综述。通过 Google Scholar、Google 和特定于主题的网页确定灰色文献。纳入描述 PM 融资和报销以及非 PM 融资的文章。提取数据并进行叙述性综合,以报告可能影响 PM 发展和采用的模型以及促进因素、激励措施、障碍和抑制因素。
共纳入 153 篇文章。PM 的研发资金来自公共和私人来源,主要通过传统模式(如单一费用、诊断相关组和捆绑支付)报销。基于财务的报销,包括回扣和价格-数量协议,主要应用于靶向治疗。主要为基因和靶向治疗以及一些伴随诊断确定了基于绩效的报销。Luxturna、Kymriah、Yescarta、Zynteglo Zolgensma 和 Strimvelis 的治疗失败提供了基于结果的回扣,Kymriah 和 Yescarta 提供了有证据的覆盖范围,基因治疗制造商为 OncotypeDX 提供了靶向测试的价值基础报销通过初始有证据的覆盖范围。PM 融资和报销的主要障碍和抑制因素是利益相关者之间缺乏紧密联系,以及缺乏 PM 的明显益处和价值。
公私融资协议和基于绩效的报销模式可以帮助促进具有明确临床益处的 PM 干预措施的发展和采用。