Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39810177›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

The value-for-money assessment and funding arrangements for high-priced drugs in an era of uncertainty: a comparative analysis of national health technology assessment agencies in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada.

Jihyung Hong, Eun-Young Bae, Sohee Cha, Joohyun Lee

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Jihyung HongDepartment of Healthcare Management, Gachon University, Seongnam-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Young BaeCollege of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University, 501 Jinju-Daero, Jinju, 52828, Republic of Korea. eybae@gnu.ac.kr.
Sohee ChaCollege of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University, 501 Jinju-Daero, Jinju, 52828, Republic of Korea.
Joohyun LeeCollege of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University, 501 Jinju-Daero, Jinju, 52828, Republic of Korea.

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea No.2022R1A2C1012252
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovative health technologies have increasingly emerged as a promising solution for patients with untreatable or challenging conditions. However, these technologies often come with expensive costs and limited evidence at the time of launch. This study assessed how these high-priced drugs with limited evidence were appraised and introduced in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada, where cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) generally plays a central role in pricing and reimbursement decisions.

methodsThe study analysed 22 high-priced drugs (24 indications) introduced in South Korea, which were granted CEA waivers due to difficulties in evidence generation and high unmet needs. Data, including funding arrangements and evidence assessed, were derived from national health technology assessment (HTA) documents and other public domains in the four countries.

resultsNearly all drugs received positive recommendations, largely through managed entry agreements (MEAs), particularly in England. Single-arm trials were more common in South Korea and England. Indirect comparison was the primary source of comparative effectiveness in England (70.0%), emphasising alignment with current practices. Australia and Canada utilised both indirect comparison and head-to-head trial data in similar proportions. Except for South Korea, all countries still required CEA data for these drugs. Data collection for coverage with evidence development was necessary in 55.0% of cases in England, and less in other countries.

conclusionHTA agencies increasingly accept the uncertainty of high-priced drugs with high unmet needs through MEAs. To ensure timely access and value for money, implementing full value assessment and uncertainty management, while strengthening national and international collaboration for effective data collection, is imperative.

Indexed as

Drug CostsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAustraliaCanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansRepublic of KoreaUncertaintyHTAManaged entry agreementsOrphan drugsRisk-sharing agreementsUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39810177
PMCPMC11731375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.