The American Journal of Managed Care September 2015
Private Sector Risk-Sharing Agreements in the United States: Trends, Barriers, and Prospects
Finally, we sought to assess the potential for increased use of RSAs in the United States given the shifting incentives in the healthcare system with healthcare reform and the growth of ACOs. However, many of the forthcoming changes have yet to take effect, and until these have been fully implemented, it is challenging to assess whether RSAs may in fact have a great role in the future.
The authors would like to thank the anonymous interviewees and survey respondents who generously shared their expertise, insights, and time, and the National Pharmaceutical Council for providing the funds to conduct this research.
Author Affiliations: Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington (LPG, JJC, PSB, SDS), Seattle, WA; VeriTech Corporation (LPG, JJC, SDS), Mercer Island, WA; Office of Health Economics (AT), London, UK; Director of the Center of the Evaluation of Value & Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center - Institute for Clinical Research & Health Policy Studies (PJN), Boston, MA; National Pharmaceutical Council (KW, RWD), Washington, DC.
Source of Funding: This research was supported by the National Pharmaceutical Council through a contract with VeriTech Corporation.
Author Disclosures: Dr Bajaj has received payment for services related to data collection, analysis, and preparation for this manuscript. Dr Carlson has been a consultant to Genentech, Pfizer, and Bayer; his employer, the University of Washington, maintains a subscription-based web-enabled database on risk-sharing agreements. Ms Westrich and Dr Dubois are employees of the National Pharmaceutical Council, an industry-funded health policy research group that is not involved in lobbying or advocacy. Dr Neumann is a board member for Merck, Takeda, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Pacira, and Genentech; and is a consultant for Boston Health Economics and Purdue. Mr Towse has previously received honoraria for an ISPOR conference short course. Drs Sullivan and Garrison report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.
Authorship Information: Concept and design (LPG, JJC, SDS, AT, KW, RWD); acquisition of data (LPG, PSB, JJC); analysis and interpretation of data (LPG, PSB, JJC, SDS, PJN, AT, KW, RWD); drafting of the manuscript (LPG, PSB, JJC, PJN, KW, RWD); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (LPG, JJC, AT, SDS, PJN, KW, RWD); obtaining funding (LPG); administrative, technical, or logistic support (PSB); and supervision (LPG, JJC).
Address correspondence to: Louis P. Garrison, Jr, PhD, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research & Policy Program, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Box 357630, 1959 NE Pacific St, H-375A, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: email@example.com.
2. Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Database. University of Washington website. https://depts.washington.edu/pbrs/index.php. Accessed January 2014.
3. Carlson JJ, Gries KS, Yeung K, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP Jr. Current status and trends in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements between healthcare payers and medical product manufacturers. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(3):231-238.
4. de Pouvourville G. Risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs: a new solution to old problems? Eur J Health Econ. 2006;7(3):155-157.
5. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(4):425-432.
6. Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96(3):179-190.
7. McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R, Menon D; Banff AED Summit. Access with evidence development schemes: a framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoecon. 2010;28(2):143-152.
8. Towse A, Garrison LP Jr. Can’t get no satisfaction? will pay for performance help? toward an economic framework for understanding performance-based risk-sharing agreements for innovative medical products. Pharmacoecon. 2010;28(2):93-102.
9. Carlson JJ, Garrison LP Jr, Sullivan SD. Paying for outcomes: innovative coverage and reimbursement schemes for pharmaceuticals. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(8):683-687.
10. Neumann PJ, Chambers JD, Simon F, Meckley LM. Risk-sharing arrangements that link payment for drugs to health outcomes are proving hard to implement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2329-2337.
11. Douven R, McGuire TG, McWilliams JM. Avoiding unintended incentives in ACO payment models. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(1):143-149.
12. Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(21):2304-2322.
13. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Deverka P, Pistollato M, Rosenberg E. The current drug development paradigm: responding to US and European demands for evidence and comparative effectiveness and relative effectiveness. Center for Medical Technology Policy website. http://www.cmtpnet.org/docs/resources/Current_Drug_Development_Paradigm_Mestre-Ferrandiz_2014.pdf. Office of Health Economics and Center for Medical Technology Policy Occasional Paper. Published April 2014. Accessed December 11, 2014.