ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2026
Comparative Cost Evaluation of Managed Entry Agreement Techniques Using Real-World Data from High-Cost Anticancer Drugs in Thailand.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-cost innovative anticancer drugs pose challenges for health systems in balancing timely patient access with long-term financial sustainability. In Thailand, reliance on Health Technology Assessment for reimbursement decisions may delay access, highlighting the potential role of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) as complementary policy instruments to manage uncertainty related to price, effectiveness, and use; however, MEA application remains limited and lacks an analytical framework for technique selection. This study used real-world data from Thammasat University Hospital to examine and compare the cost-saving performance of five MEA techniques-discount, free initiation treatment, utilization cap, conditional treatment continuation, and pay-by-result-across six high-cost anticancer drugs representing dominant uncertainty characteristics. Drug procurement costs were modeled over a 24-month horizon from the payer's perspective, and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted using ±10% variation in median progression-free survival. Free initiation treatment generated the highest cost savings across uncertainty types, followed by conditional treatment continuation, while utilization cap and discount produced more moderate savings. Pay-by-result demonstrated the lowest cost-saving potential. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of comparative rankings. Overall, the findings indicate that MEA performance varies according to dominant sources of drug-related uncertainty and support a more structured, context-appropriate approach to MEA selection to strengthen market access and value-based pricing in Thailand.
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.