Innovative medical products offer significant and potentially transformative impacts on health, but they create concerns about rising spending and whether this rise is translating into higher value. The result is increasing pressure to pay for therapies in a way that is tied to their value to stakeholders through improving outcomes, reducing disease complications, and addressing concerns about affordability. Policy responses include the growing application of health technology assessments based on available evidence to determine unit prices, as well as alternatives to volume-based payment that adjust product payments based on predictors or measures of value. Building on existing frameworks for value-based payment for health care providers, we developed an analogous framework for medical products, including drugs, devices, and diagnostic tools. We illustrate each of these types of alternative payment mechanisms and describe the conditions under which each may be useful. We discuss how the use of this framework can help track reforms, improve evidence, and advance policy analysis involving medical product payment.

Chronic pulmonary and respiratory conditions associated with preterm birth are incompletely characterized, complicating long-term treatment and development of more effective therapies. Stakeholders face challenges in the development of validated, clinically meaningful endpoints that adequately measure morbidities and predict or represent health outcomes for preterm neonates. We propose in this paper a research agenda, informed by the input of experts from a 2018 workshop we convened on this topic, to advance endpoint and treatment development. We discuss the necessity of further evaluation of existing endpoints and the improved characterization of disease endotypes. We also discuss key steps to the development of optimized short- and long-term endpoints that can be linked to meaningful health outcomes. Finally, we discuss the importance of limiting variability in data collection and the application of new clinical trial endpoints as well as the critical nature of multi-stakeholder collaboration to advancing therapeutic development for this vulnerable patient population.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the prevalence of US value-based payment arrangements (VBAs), their characteristics, and the factors that facilitate their success or act as barriers to their implementation. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys were administered to a convenience sample of subject matter experts who were senior representatives from payer organizations and biopharmaceutical manufacturers. These data were supplemented with qualitative interviews in a subsample of survey respondents. METHODS: Descriptive statistics, including percentages for categorical values and mean (SD) and median (interquarange) for continuous variables, were assessed for quantitative questions. Trained reviewers collated response to free-text survey questions and the qualitative interviews to identify themes. RESULTS: Of the 25 respondents, 1 manufacturer and 4 payers reported not having explored or negotiated any VBAs. Subsequently, questionnaire results from 11 biopharmaceutical manufacturers and 9 payers who had experience with VBAs were analyzed. More than 70% of VBAs implemented between 2014 and 2017 were not publicly disclosed. Furthermore, although consideration of VBAs as a coverage and payment tool is increasing, VBA implementation is relatively low, with manufacturers and payers reporting that approximately 33% and 60% of early dialogues translate into signed VBA contracts respectively. Respondents' reasoning for VBA negotiation process breakdowns generally differed by sector and reflected each sector's respective priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that the majority of VBAs are not publicly disclosed, which could underestimate their true prevalence and impact. Given the effort required to implement a VBA, future arrangements would likely benefit from a framework or other evaluative tool to help assess VBA pursuit desirability and guide the negotiation and implementation process.

Recent advancements in regulatory science have helped to create a more efficient, predictable, and collaborative medical product development and regulatory review process that speeds treatment to patients. As stakeholders grapple with continued challenges related to the cost and value of innovative medical products, it is important to also examine the role that robust regulatory science and policy initiatives may play in increasing competition and driving down cost burdens for patients and the healthcare system.

To pilot use of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Sentinel System data and analytic tools by a non‐FDA stakeholder through the Innovation in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance system of the Reagan Udall Foundation. We evaluated the US FDA 2010 proton pump inhibitor (PPI) class label change that warned of increased risk of bone fracture, to use PPIs for the lowest dose and shortest duration, and to manage bone status for those at risk for osteoporosis.

The use of performance outcome (PerfO) assessments to measure cognitive or physical function in drug trials presents several challenges for both sponsors and regulators, owing in part to a relative lack of scientific guidance on their development, implementation, and interpretation. In December 2016, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy convened a 2-day workshop to explore the evidentiary, methodologic, and operational challenges associated with PerfO measures, and to identify potential paths to addressing these challenges. This paper presents both a summary of the discussion as well as additional input from a working group of experts from FDA, industry, academia, and public-private consortia. It is intended to advance the discussion around the development and use of PerfO measures to assess patient functioning in clinical trials intended to support registration of new treatments, and to highlight the key gaps in knowledge where additional research, collaboration, and discussion are needed.

Drug regulatory agencies around the world have implemented programs to expedite drug development and review for promising new products for serious diseases. These programs are all intended to minimize delays in patient access to innovative medicines, and have used broadly similar strategies to shorten drug development and review timelines. However, they differ in many key respects, and some stakeholders have suggested that these differences create unnecessary barriers in the development and approval process, possibly leading to delays in access. In collaboration with FDA, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy convened an expert workshop to elicit feedback from a broad range of stakeholders as to whether a lack of harmonization across expedited programs is interfering with the efficient development of new products and, if so, to explore strategies for addressing these challenges. This report provides a summary of key themes and major findings from that discussion.

As part of a multifactorial approach to address weak incentives for innovative antimicrobial drug development, market entry rewards (MERs) are an emerging solution. Recently, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy released the Priority Antimicrobial Value and Entry (PAVE) Award proposal, which combines a MER with payment reforms, transitioning from volume-based to value-based payments for antimicrobials. Here, the PAVE Award and similar MERs are reviewed, focusing on further refinement and avenues for implementation.

Current federal laws and FDA regulations have significantly restricted the sharing of clinical and health economic information on biopharmaceuticals that have yet to receive FDA approval. Over the past several years, organizations that make health care coverage decisions, including those that set copayments, premiums, and formulary placement, have expressed a need for receiving this information before approval, as long as appropriate safeguards exist to prevent this information from reaching unintended entities. Population health decision makers have indicated that waiting until FDA approval is often too late for the critical planning, budgeting, and forecasting associated with health benefit design, especially given the recent influx of high-cost medications and scrutiny for better evaluation and preparation. Recognizing that securities laws restrict the disclosure of nonpublic information and may need to be amended, permissible early dissemination would allow population health decision makers to incorporate clinical and economic information for pipeline drugs or expanded indications into financial forecasting for the following year's plan. Access to this information is needed 12-18 months before FDA approval when organizations are deciding on terms of coverage and budgetary assumptions for state health insurance rate filings, Medicare and Medicaid bids, contracts with health care purchasers, and other financial arrangements. The need for exchange of clinical economic information before FDA approval was first introduced at a previous Academy of Managed Care (AMCP) forum in March 2016, which addressed section 114 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act and the communication of such information after FDA approval. To address preapproval information specifically, AMCP convened a Partnership Forum on September 13-14, 2016. This forum included a diverse group of stakeholders representing managed care, the biopharmaceutical industry, providers, patients, health economists, academia, and others. The multistakeholder group represented the key professionals and entities affected by the federal laws and FDA regulations that restrict the sharing of preapproval information and the collective credibility necessary for proposing this new communication process. Forum participants primarily focused on 6 items of discussion: (1) creating and defining new terms for how biopharmaceutical manufacturers may provide clinical and economic information 12-18 months before FDA approval; (2) defining the clinical and scientific standards that this information should meet; (3) determining which entities should have access to this information and the value to each; (4) the format and process by which this information should be disseminated; (5) developing definitions for existing terms referenced in current laws, regulations, or guidance documents that would need to be modernized to align with the identified new term; and (6) providing safeguards to prevent this information from reaching unintended entities. Forum participants selected "preapproval information exchange" (PIE) as the correct term to describe this proposed new communication process and to be inclusive of data from pivotal phase III clinical trials, pharmaco-economic data, and patient-reported outcomes, as well as other relevant items, including anticipated indications, place in therapy, and routes of administration. Stakeholders agreed that PIE should be truthful, non misleading, and include a broad range of information to meet the needs of population health decision makers and health care technology evolution. Recipients of PIE would be limited to population health decision makers who need this information for coverage decisions. The format and process for PIE disseminated should allow for a bidirectional exchange between manufacturers and population health decision makers but should not be proscribed in legislation. Furthermore, new legislative language may be beneficial, since PIE is a novel category of information. New legislation could provide a safe harbor and clarity that PIE does not violate preapproval promotion and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its regulations. Copyright (C) 2017, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. All rights reserved.

Rising costs without perceived proportional improvements in quality and outcomes have motivated fundamental shifts in health care delivery and payment to achieve better value. Aligned with these efforts, several value assessment frameworks have been introduced recently to help providers, patients, and payers better understand the potential value of drugs and other interventions and make informed decisions about their use. Given their early stage of development, it is imperative to evaluate these efforts on an ongoing basis to identify how best to support and improve them moving forward. This article provides a multistakeholder perspective on the key limitations and opportunities posed by the current value assessment frameworks and areas of and actions for improvement. In particular, we outline 10 fundamental guiding principles and associated strategies that should be considered in subsequent iterations of the existing frameworks or by emerging initiatives in the future. Although value assessment frameworks may not be able to meet all the needs and preferences of stakeholders, we contend that there are common elements and potential next steps that can be supported to advance value assessment in the United States.

CONTEXT:Policy and legislative efforts to improve the biomedical innovation process must rely on a detailed and thorough analysis of drug development and industry output.OBJECTIVE:As part of our efforts to build a publicly-available database on the characteristics of drug development, we present work undertaken to test methods for compiling data from public sources. These initial steps are designed to explore challenges in data extraction, completeness and reliability. Specifically, filing dates for Investigational New Drugs (IND) applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were chosen as the initial objective data element to be collected.MATERIALS AND METHODS:FDA's Drugs@FDA database and the Federal Register (FR) were used to collect IND dates for the 587 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) approved between 1994 and 2014. When available, the following data were captured: approval date, IND number, IND date and source of information.RESULTS:At least one IND date was available for 445 (75.8%) of the 587 NMEs. The Drugs@FDA database provided IND dates for 303 (51.6%) NMEs and the FR contributed with 297 (50.6%) IND dates. Out of the 445 NMEs for which an IND date was obtained, 274 (61.6%) had more than one date reported.DISCUSSION:Key finding of this paper is a considerable inconsistency in reliably available or reported data elements, in this particular case, IND application filing dates as assembled from publicly-available sources.CONCLUSION:Our team will continue to focus on finding ways to collect relevant information to measure impact of drug innovation.

The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997 included Section 114 as a regulatory safe harbor with the goal of increasing the dissemination of health care economic information (HCEI) to those responsible for formulary decision making. HCEI is typically not included within FDA-approved labeling. Although it has been nearly 20 years since passage and enactment of Section 114, proactive distribution of HCEI has been underutilized by biopharmaceutical companies partly because of (a) vague wording in the statute and (b) the absence of FDA-implementing regulations. Consequently, companies and health care decisions makers have had to speculate about the scope of the provisions. As a result, the biopharmaceutical industry has significant concerns about stepping over the line when using the safe harbor. Also, payers and other "payer-like" decision makers (e.g., self-funded corporate insurers) who are trying to make appropriate coverage and utilization decisions are demanding this information but are not receiving it because of the uncertainties in the statute. Considering this renewed interest by multiple stakeholders regarding the need for revisions and/or guidance pertaining to Section 114, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy held a partnership forum on March 1-2, 2016, with a diverse group of health care stakeholders to provide the FDA with considerations for disseminating a guidance document on current thinking for the sharing of HCEI with health care decision makers. Forum participants represented the managed care industry, biopharmaceutical industry, health care providers, pharmacoeconomic experts, policy experts, and patient advocacy groups with specific expertise in the development, use, and dissemination of HCEI. The multistakeholder group represented the key professionals and entities affected by the provisions of Section 114 and present the collective credibility necessary for Congress and the FDA to modernize and operationalize the safe harbor by using the consensus recommendations developed during the forum. Speakers, panelists, and attendees focused on 4 terms in Section 114 that remain open to interpretation by companies and enforcement bodies: (1) the scope of HCEI, (2) the scope of "formulary committee or similar entity," (3) the definition of "competent and reliable scientific evidence (CRSE)," and (4) the parameters of how information "directly relates to an approved indication." Based on the forum results, it was recommended that the safe harbor for companies' proactive dissemination of information under Section 114 should include health care decision makers beyond health plan formulary committees, including organizations, or individuals in their role in an organization, who make health care decisions for patient populations. Recommendations also suggested expansion to organizations that evaluate HCEI or develop value frameworks and compendia and individuals in such organizations. Forum participants also recommended that HCEI be truthful, and not misleading, and be based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area. HCEI must also be developed and disclosed in a transparent, reproducible, and accurate manner. Forum participants also discussed and agreed on the types of information, format, and processes by which managed care pharmacy and other health care decision makers seek to receive HCEI from biopharmaceutical companies. Finally, participants encouraged the FDA, Congress, and other stakeholders to find ways to ensure that patients or their representative organizations have appropriate access to a full range of information about their medications and that information related to the medication pipeline is communicated to appropriate stakeholders in a timely manner.The AMCP Partnership Forum on FDAMA Section 114-Improving the Exchange of Pharmacoeconomic Data and the development of this proceedings document were supported by AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., National Pharmaceutical Council, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Precision for Value, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A., and Xcenda. All sponsors participated in the forum and participated in revising and approving the manuscript.

New drugs and biologics have had a tremendous impact on the treatment of many diseases. However, available measures suggest that pharmaceutical innovation has remained relatively flat, despite substantial growth in research and development spending. We review recent literature on pharmaceutical innovation to identify limitations in measuring and assessing innovation, and we describe the framework and collaborative approach we are using to develop more comprehensive, publicly available metrics for innovation. Our research teams at the Brookings Institution and Deerfield Institute are collaborating with experts from multiple areas of drug development and regulatory review to identify and collect comprehensive data elements related to key development and regulatory characteristics for each new molecular entity approved over the past several decades in the United States and the European Union. Subsequent phases of our effort will add data on downstream product use and patient outcomes and will also include drugs that have failed or been abandoned in development. Such a database will enable researchers to better analyze the drivers of drug innovation, trends in the output of new medicines, and the effect of policy efforts designed to improve innovation.