Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37497570›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

An evaluation of managed access agreements in England based on stakeholder experience.

Caroline Farmer, Maxwell S Barnish, Laura A Trigg, Samuel Hayward, Naomi Shaw, Louise Crathorne, Thomas Strong, Brad Groves, John Spoors, G J Melendez Torres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Early access schemes for innovative health technologies: the views of international stakeholders.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Caroline FarmerPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3553-8970
Maxwell S BarnishPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Laura A TriggPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Samuel HaywardHealth and Care Public Health Team, North Somerset Council.
Naomi ShawPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Louise CrathornePeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Thomas StrongManaged Access Team, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK.
Brad GrovesManaged Access Team, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK.
John SpoorsMedicines Value and Access Unit, NHS England, London, UK.
G J Melendez TorresPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this research was to evaluate managed access policy in England, drawing upon the expertise of a range of stakeholders involved in its implementation.

methodsSeven focus groups were conducted with payer and health technology assessment representatives, clinicians, and representatives from industry and patient/carer organizations within England. Transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis to identify stakeholders' views on the successes and challenges of managed access policy.

resultsStakeholders discussed the many aims of managed access within the National Health Service in England, and how competing aims had affected decision making. While stakeholders highlighted a number of priorities within eligibility criteria for managed access agreements (MAAs), stakeholders agreed that strict eligibility criteria would be challenging to implement due to the highly variable nature of innovative technologies and their indications. Participants highlighted challenges faced with implementing MAAs, including evidence generation, supporting patients during and after the end of MAAs, and agreeing and reinforcing contractual agreements with industry.

conclusionsManaged access is one strategy that can be used by payers to resolve uncertainty for innovative technologies that present challenges for reimbursement and can also deliver earlier access to promising technologies for patients. However, participants cautioned that managed access is not a "silver bullet," and there is a need for greater clarity about the aims of managed access and how these should be prioritized in decision making. Discussions between key stakeholders involved in managed access identified challenges with implementing MAAs and these experiences should be used to inform future managed access policy.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryState MedicineEnglandHumansPolicyUncertaintyinvestigationalpolicyreimbursement mechanismstherapiesvalue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID37497570
PMCPMC11569988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.