RESUMEN

Introduction: The therapeutic options for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are encouraging. However, there is currently no cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The clinical and economic uncertainty surrounding innovative treatments for rare neurodegenerative diseases makes it necessary to understand managed entry agreements (MEAs). The aim of this study was to review whether models of MEAs in SMA could be extrapolated to ALS. Methods: We performed a scoping review with information on MEAs on SMA in Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Lyfegen Library, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Results: We found 45 results in WOS and PubMed. After an initial survey, 10 were reviewed to assess eligibility, and three were selected. We obtained 44 results from Lyfegen Library, and three results each from NICE and CADTH. Conclusion: The main objective of MEAs is to reduce uncertainty in the financing of drugs with a high budgetary impact and clinical concerns, as is the case with drugs for SMA and ALS. While the information available on MEAs in SMA is scarce, some conceptual models are publicly available. MEAs for long-term treatments for SMA could be used for the design of MEAs in ALS because of their similarities in economic and clinical uncertainty.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system. Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021-2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared. Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs. Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There has been an increasing demand to reimburse high-cost medicines, through public health insurance schemes in Thailand. METHODS: A mixed method approach was employed. First, a rapid review of select high-income countries was conducted, followed by expert consultations and an in-depth review of three countries: Australia, England and Republic of Korea to understand reimbursement mechanisms of high-cost medicines. In Thailand, current pathways for reimbursing high-cost medicines reviewed, the potential opportunity cost estimated, and stakeholder consultations were conducted to identify context specific considerations. RESULTS: High-income countries reviewed have implemented a variety of pathways and mechanisms for reimbursing high-cost medicines under specific eligibility criteria, listing processes, varying cost-effectiveness thresholds and special funding arrangements. In Thailand, high-cost medicines that do not offer good value-for-money are excluded from the reimbursement process. A framework for reimbursing high-cost medicines that are not cost-effective at the current willingness-to-pay threshold was proposed for Thailand. Under this framework, specific criteria are proposed to determine their eligibility for reimbursement such life-saving nature, treatment of conditions with no alternative treatment options, and affordability. CONCLUSION: High-cost medicines may become eligible for reimbursement through alternative mechanisms based on specific criteria which depend on each context. The application of HTA methods and processes is important in guiding these decisions to support sustainable access to affordable healthcare in pursuit of Universal Health Coverage (UHC).

RESUMEN

Managed entry agreements are applied in almost all European countries in order to improve patients' access to therapy. The current study aims to evaluate the changes in the affordability of biological medicines for patients in Bulgaria during 2019-2022. The study is a top-down macroeconomic analysis of the key economic indicators and reimbursed costs of biologic therapies. Affordability was determined as the number of working hours needed to pay for monthly therapy. The average NHIF budget for pharmaceuticals increased significantly along with inflation in the healthcare sector. Bulgarian patients had to devote a large part of their income to buying medicines if a co-payment existed. The percentage of the monthly income of pensioners needed for therapy co-payment varied between 10% and 280%. The hours of work required to purchase a package of biologicals varied between 7 and 137 working hours. The global economic crisis has affected Bulgaria and led to worsening economic parameters. There are still no well-established practices to control public spending, as the measures taken to reduce the final cost of medicines mainly affect the pharmaceutical companies. This type of cost-containment policy provides an opportunity for innovative treatment with biologicals for patients with inflammatory diseases. Most of the therapies cost more than the patients' monthly income.

RESUMEN

Objectives: This study aimed to understand Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) in Korea through the framework of three streams of the policy window model and its practical management and impact on pricing and reimbursement scheme. Methods: An extensive literature review based on Kingdon's model was conducted. We also performed descriptive analyses of MEA implementation using data on medicines listed in Korea and compared its MEA scheme with four different countries. Results: As per problem streams, patients with rare disease or cancers have considerable difficulties in affording their medicines and this has challenged the drug benefit system and raised an issue of patient's access. Policy streams highlighted that MEAs were introduced as a benefit enhancement plan for four major diseases since January 2014. MEAs have also been strengthened as a bypass mechanism to expand the insurance coverage especially for new premium-priced medicines under Moon Care (Listing all non-listed services). In descriptive analysis of MEAs, a total of 48 medicines were contracted as MEAs from January 2014 to December 2020, accounting for 73.4% of listed medicines for cancer or rare diseases and 97.9% of the cases were finance-based contracts. Meanwhile, outcome-based contracts such as CED accounted for only 2.1%. The application of MEAs differs across countries, resulting in a kappa coefficient of 0.00-0.14 (United Kingdom 0.03, Italy 0.00, Australia 0.14), indicating a lack of consistency compared to South Korea. Conclusion: MEAs, which were introduced as a bypass mechanism, have now superseded the standard process for anticancer agents or orphan drugs. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the confidential agreements and effectiveness of new high-priced medicines with limited clinical data at launch.

RESUMEN

Legislations incentivising orphan drug development and scientific advances have made orphan drugs pharma's high-end favourite for the past two decades. Currently, around 50% of new marketing authorizations are for orphan drugs. For third-party healthcare payers ("payers") the rise of orphan drugs presents new challenges, including a high degree of uncertainty around clinical benefits and harms, a moderate effect size (for many orphan drugs), and a high price tag. The association of high clinical uncertainty and moderate effect sizes is not surprising in small target populations but in combination with high prices creates the risk of allocative and technical inefficiencies for payers. We here discuss and illustrate these risks. A combination of policies is needed for mitigation of allocative inefficiency: while there may be a rationale for higher prices for orphan than non-orphan drugs, a focus of pricing and reimbursement negotiations should include considerations of product profitability and of the consequences of orphan drug costs on the distribution inequality of medication costs for individual insured persons, coupled to knowledge generation from reimbursement contracts covering high-price orphan drugs that would benefit the wider patient community. Performance-based managed entry agreements could help to de-risk the economic consequences of clinical uncertainty and to mitigate technical inefficiency.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Burn eschar removal by enzymatic debridement with NexoBrid® (EDNX) results in a maximum preservation of all viable tissue, which is the main advantage over traditional tangential excision. The authors participated in a marketing authorization holder process to obtain reimbursement from the national health authorities in Belgium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The reimbursement process consisted of three phases, as specified by the reimbursement regulations required by the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). RESULTS: Forty-one patients with clinically deep 2nd and 3rd degree burns, treated with EDNX in two Belgian burn centers, were included in the registry for the first phase of the reimbursement process. The total success rate of the EDNX treatment was 95.1% (39/41). Over half of the burn wounds treated with NexoBrid® (55.2%) did not require any additional surgical debridement or skin grafting. To obtain definitive reimbursement, an extra 16 patients were included. In this population, 51.4% did not require any surgical intervention. The total success rate of the EDNX debridement in this group was 100%. Based on an estimated market share of 12% and around 75 patients in the third year after final reimbursement, a market access consultant calculated that NexoBrid® will realize yearly savings for the Belgian Healthcare budget of at least €30.000. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this Belgian registry study in combination with the yearly healthcare budget savings, the NIHDI granted a final reimbursement for EDNX treatment in adults, endorsed by the Minister of Health on November 5th, 2019.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

RESUMEN

Managed entry agreements (MEA) represent one of the main topics of discussion between the European National Payers Authorities. Several initiatives on the subject have been organized over the past few years and the scientific literature is full of publications on the subject. There is currently little international sharing of information between payers, mainly as a result of the confidentiality issues. There are potential benefits from the mutual sharing of information, both about the existence of MEAs and on the outcomes and results. The importance of involving all the players in the decision-making process on market access for a medicinal product (MP) is that it may help to make new therapies available to patients in a shorter time. The aim of this project is to propose a new pathway of value-based MEA (VBMEA), based on the analysis of the current Italian pricing and reimbursement framework. This requires elaboration of a transparent appraisal and MEA details with at least a 24-month contract. The price of the MP is therefore valued based on the analysis of the VBMEA registries of the Italian Medicines Agency. Although the proposal focuses on the Italian context, a similar approach could also be adapted in other nations, considering the particularities of the single health technology assessment (HTA)/payer system.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The healthcare system aspires to ensure improved access to treatment while working within the existing financial constraints and increasing demands. Patient access schemes (PASs) are initiated to improve access. This study seeks the stakeholders' views on the PAS in the public healthcare sector in Malaysia. METHODS: This is an exploratory qualitative study using a web-based online survey and semistructured interviews. The participants were recruited by purposive sampling, where the Ministry of Health of Malaysia staff, pharmaceutical organization personnel, and patient advocacy organization personnel with experience in PAS were invited to participate. A total of 42 consenting participants answered the survey, whereas the face-to-face interview had 8 participants. Interviews were thematically analyzed using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.12. The Medical Research and Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health of Malaysia, approved the study. RESULTS: Only finance-based PAS was reportedly implemented, and it covered drugs for antineoplastic or immunomodulating therapy, alimentary tract and metabolism, sensory organs, and systemic hormonal preparations. A total of 3 major themes were identified. High upfront cost and high budget impact are a major concern leading to the need for PAS. Identifying the treatment needs was a major concern as well. The readiness of the health system to implement PAS will determine whether the PAS can be successfully implemented. Challenges similar to other jurisdictions were observed in Malaysia, concerns on data availability, the responsibility of the stakeholders, and the need for a legal framework. CONCLUSION: Most stakeholders responded positively that the PAS would grow. Trust among stakeholders and a structured access plan would enhance the implementation and ensure its success.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Experiences with coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes are fairly limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, which are usually late adopters of new health technologies. Our aim was to put forward recommendations on how CEE health technology assessment bodies and payer organizations can apply CED to reduce decision uncertainty on reimbursement of medical devices, with a particular focus on transferring the structure and data from CED schemes in early technology adopter countries in Western Europe. Structured interviews on the practices and feasibility of transferring CED schemes were conducted and subsequently, a draft tool for the systematic classification of decision alternatives and recommendations was developed. The decision tool was reviewed in a focus group discussion and validated within a wider group of CEE experts in a virtual workshop. Transferability assessment is needed in case of (1) joint implementation of a CED scheme; (2) transferring the structure of an existing CED scheme to a CEE country; (3) reimbursement decisions that are linked to outcomes of an ongoing CED scheme in another country and (4) real-world evidence transferred from completed CED schemes. Efficient use of available resources may be improved by adequately transferring evidence and policy tools from early technology adopter countries.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Indication-based pricing (IBP) has received growing attention because of the expected increase in the number of new medicines with multiple indications. In our systematic review, we assess the potential benefits, barriers, current experiences, and future perspectives of different IBP mechanisms. METHODS: We searched publications in English, Spanish, or French assessing the impact, international experience, and future context of IBP systems on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, EconLit, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment from 2000 to 2020. This was complemented by a gray literature search in Google Scholar. RESULTS: A total of 29 publications that specifically addressed the topic of IBP were retained. The most commonly reported benefits of IBP were a better alignment of medicines' value and price, optimization of research and development incentives and increase of competition, and improvement of patients' access to treatments. Data collection and proper infrastructures, and the risk of high administrative burden and associated costs, were seen as the main barriers for proper IBP implementation. International experience lacks concrete examples of IBP. A single weighted average price according to volume, value, or a combination of both, appears to be the most used methodology, followed by different confidential net prices per indication. Different brands with distinct price per indication are less common, although it is considered a pure IBP system. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of IBP impact is still scarce, and there is a need for pilot projects and experiences to monitor its real consequences. An appropriate price and reimbursement model for multi-indication medicines should be a priority, but political will and proper data collection systems remain crucial.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE To boost access to medical insurance for drugs and improve the accessibility and affordability of drugs. METHODS The current status of the application of international and domestic drug Managed Entry Agreement （MEA）were investigated through literature research method and other methods ，and analyzed comparatively from the aspects of the scope of agreement drugs ，the types of agreements and the content of the agreement ，etc. The problems existing in the application of drug MEA in China were summarized to put forward the suggestions. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS The UK ，Australia and Italy had rich experience in the application of drug MEA ，and the operation management mechanism were complete. The scope of drugs included in MEA in these countries were relatively broad and the types of agreements were relatively diversified. In China ，drugs included in MEA were mainly oncology drugs and rare disease drugs. The types of agreements mainly included “finance-based agreements”and effect guarantee/effect-based payment in individual-level of“performance-based agreements ”. China ’s evidence collection platform was imperfect and lacked standardized process of MEA. It is suggested that stakeholders should consider increasing the types of drugs ，diversified types of agreements ，improving the accuracy and continuity of evidence collection ， establishing a standardized process for MEA.

RESUMEN

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Italy has a well-established prominent system of national registries to support managed entry agreements (MEAs), monitoring innovative medicinal products (MPs) with clinical as well as economic uncertainties to ensure appropriate use and best value for money. The technological architecture of the registries is funded by pharmaceutical companies, but fully governed by the national medicines agency (AIFA). A desktop analysis was undertaken of data over a 15-year timeframe of all AIFA indication-based registries and associated EMA information. The characteristics of registries were evaluated, comparing orphan MPs vs. all MPs exploring cancer and non-cancer indications. OMP (orphan medicinal product) registries' type vs. AIFA innovation status and EMA approval was reviewed. Of the 283 registries, 182 are appropriateness registries (35.2% relate to OMPs, with an almost equal split of cancer vs. non-cancer for OMPs and MPs), 35 include financial-based agreements [20% OMPs (2 non-cancer, 5 cancer)], and 60 registries are payment by result agreements [23.3% OMPs (4 non-cancer, 10 cancer)]. Most OMPs (53/88) came through the normal regulatory route. With the strengthening of the system for evaluation of innovation, fewer outcomes-based registries have been instigated. AIFA has overcome many of the challenges experienced with MEA through developing an integrated national web-based data collection system: the challenge that remains for AIFA is to move from using the system for individual patient decisions about treatment to reviewing the wealth of data it now holds to optimize healthcare.

RESUMEN

The process of introducing a new health technology into a healthcare system is characterized by uncertainty and risk for those involved-pharmaceutical companies, payers, patients and the government. In view of the accelerated introduction of new technologies in recent years, mechanisms to reduce uncertainty are of growing interest. One example is the Managed Entry Agreement (MEA), which we explore using a mechanism design approach. We make use of the Israeli experience, in which pharmaceutical companies and health plans (i.e., payers) negotiate over the introduction of new technologies into the national Health Services Basket (HSB) with the Ministry of Health acting as a mediator. We use the framework of bargaining within a mechanism design framework to show that in the process of negotiation the parties, the pharmaceutical company (PC) and the health plan (HP), have independent private valuations and that a situation of common knowledge that gains from MEA exists is rare. Adding a mediator (i.e., the MEA team) to the mechanism, as in a direct-revelation mechanism, reduces the level of uncertainty for both sides (i.e., the PC and the HP), thus making it possible to meet the budget constraint while increasing value for patients and enhancing ex-post efficiency.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background. Pharmaceutical risk sharing agreements (RSAs) are commonly used to manage uncertainties in costs and/or clinical benefits when new drugs are added to a formulary. However, existing mathematical models of RSAs ignore the impact of RSAs on clinical and financial risk. Methods. We develop a model in which the number of patients, total drug consumption per patient, and incremental health benefits per patient are uncertain at the time of the introduction of a new drug. We use the model to evaluate the impact of six common RSAs on total drug costs and total net monetary benefit (NMB). Results. We show that, relative to not having an RSA in place, each RSA reduces expected total drug costs and increases expected total NMB. Each RSA also improves two measures of risk by reducing the probability that total drug costs exceed any threshold and reducing the probability of obtaining negative NMB. However, the effects on variance in both NMB and total drug costs are mixed. In some cases, relative to not having an RSA in place, implementing an RSA can increase variability in total drug costs or total NMB. We also show that, for some RSAs, when their parameters are adjusted so that they have the same impact on expected total drug cost, they can be rank-ordered in terms of their impact on variance in drug costs. Conclusions. Although all RSAs reduce expected total drug costs and increase expected total NMB, some RSAs may actually have the undesirable effect of increasing risk. Payers and formulary managers should be aware of these mean-variance tradeoffs and the potentially unintended results of RSAs when designing and negotiating RSAs.

RESUMEN

Access to highly expensive and innovative medicine is a challenge. Managed entry agreements/ arrangements (MEAs) consist of various forms of confidential agreements between pharmaceutical manufacturers and payers (hospitals, social insurance), which are mainly negotiated when there is uncertainty of the actual clinical benefit of the medicines, but high public expenditures are required. Continued and expanding use of these schemes requires a greater understanding of payer perceptions, experience, and orientation towards their current and future use. This literature review aimed to identify the stakeholders' concerns with regards to MEAs. A total of 20 articles were identified between 2007 and 2018. MEAs are mostly studied in the first world countries, whereas limited documentation is available for other nations. The reasons for rejection of proposed MEAs could possibly be related to existing low-cost effective treatments, lack of trust between stakeholders, high administrative burden and if the authorities believe they are funding the substantial proportion of the drug's development cost. Lack of well-designed and easy-to-use data collection methods for MEAs has an impact on the evidence generation. Most articles highlighted the lack of transparency of the agreements which may not benefit other health systems, especially for systems that are dependent on international referencing price. Stakeholders also identified the lack of expertise in assessing the pharmacoeconomic and health outcomes data and challenges in assessing risks up-front due to the complexity of the real-world data. Lack of transparency in most health systems are also a hindrance to further understanding and confidence in the MEAs. However, the views of the stakeholders may also evolve with experience. Though there are challenges in the designing and implementation of MEAs, close networking, improved human capital development especially in the area of health technology assessment and health economics would be able to close the gap in the implementation.

RESUMEN

Background: Nusinersen is an orphan drug intended for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a severe genetic neuromuscular disorder. Considering the very high costs of orphan drugs and the expected market entry of cell and gene therapies, there is increased interest in the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for orphan drugs. This study explores the role of the economic evaluation and budget impact analysis on the reimbursement of nusinersen. Methods: Appraisal reports for nusinersen were retrieved from reimbursement and HTA agencies in Belgium, Canada, France, England and Wales, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United States. Detailed information was extracted on the economic evaluation, the budget impact, the overall reimbursement decision, and the managed entry agreement (MEA). Costs were adjusted for inflation and currency. Results: Overall, the reports included limited data on budget impact, excluding information on the sources of data for cost and patient estimates. Only three jurisdictions reported on total budget impact, estimated between 30 and 40 million euros per year. For early-onset SMA, the incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (ICER) ranged from €464,891 to €6,399,097 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for nusinersen versus standard of care. For later-onset SMA, the ICER varied from €493,756 to €10,611,936 per QALY. Although none of the jurisdictions found nusinersen to be cost-effective, reimbursement was granted in each jurisdiction. Remarkably, only four reports included arguments in favor of reimbursement. However, the majority of the jurisdictions set up an MEA, which may have promoted a positive reimbursement decision. Conclusion: There is a need for more transparency on the appraisal process and conditions included in the MEA. Additionally, by considering all relevant criteria explicitly during the appraisal process, decision-makers are in a better position to justify their allocation of funds among the rising number of orphan drugs that are coming to the market in the near future.

RESUMEN

Background: The challenging market access of high-cost one-time curative therapies has inspired the development of alternative reimbursement structures, such as outcome-based spread payments, to mitigate their unaffordability and answer remaining uncertainties. This study aimed to provide a broad overview of barriers and possible opportunities for the practical implementation of outcome-based spread payments for the reimbursement of one-shot therapies in European healthcare systems. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed investigating published literature and publicly available documents to identify barriers and implementation opportunities for both spreading payments and for implementing outcome-based agreements. Data was analyzed via qualitative content analysis by extracting data with a reporting template. Results: A total of 1,503 publications were screened and 174 were included. Main identified barriers for the implementation of spread payments are reaching an agreement on financial terms while considering 12-months budget cycles and the possible violation of corresponding international accounting rules. Furthermore, outcome correction of payments is currently hindered by the need for additional data collection, the lack of clear governance structures and the resulting administrative burden and cost. The use of spread payments adjusted by population- or individual-level data collected within automated registries and overseen by a governance committee and external advisory board may alleviate several barriers and may support the reimbursement of highly innovative therapies. Conclusion: High-cost advanced therapy medicinal products pose a substantial affordability challenge on healthcare systems worldwide. Outcome-based spread payments may mitigate the initial budget impact and alleviate existing uncertainties; however, their effective implementation still faces several barriers and will be facilitated by realizing the required organizational changes.