ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2025
Multi-Year Multi-Indication Agreements for Supporting Patient Access to Oncology Medicines with Multiple Indications: An Experimental Approach or Here to Stay?
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pricing Combination Therapies: A Systematic Review of Value Attribution, Cost-Sharing Mechanisms and Policy Frameworks.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Balancing Access and Value in Multi-Indication Medicines: Implications of PD-(L)1 Broad Listings in Australia.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- A natural language processing approach to determine whether streamlined health technology assessment for multi-indication medicines is feasible.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Budget Impact Projections in Bulgarian Health Technology Assessment: A Five-Year Validation Study (2020-2025).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past decade, an increasing number of oncology medicines with indications for multiple cancer types have been delivering benefits to patients. To ensure these products reach patients, pricing and reimbursement systems have had to adapt to address the value assessment, time-to-access, affordability, and budget uncertainty challenges this creates. Multi-year multi-indication (MYMI) agreements are made between payers and manufacturers and aim to ensure that patients have access to effective treatments for multiple conditions over time; this includes future indications of the treatment. MYMI agreements were first introduced as a solution in several European countries in 2017, offering a range of potential benefits. MYMI agreements have since demonstrated evidence of success in mitigating many of the challenges associated with assessing and reimbursing multi-indication products, time-to-patient access, and budget impact. The purpose of this article is to discuss the recent progress made with MYMI implementation across countries and provide a view on whether it is delivering for patients, healthcare systems, and innovators. We find that MYMI is not a one-size-fits-all solution but a model that needs to be adapted to the unique needs and characteristics of different healthcare systems. The intended benefits of MYMI to patients (speed and breadth of access to new indications) appear to have been realised in practice in some countries but not all. However, the administrative burden associated with MYMI implementation in some countries risks jeopardising the intended efficiency benefits. Payers and policymakers can also benefit from improved budget predictability and sustainability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.