Search

Regional Formularies (RF) are considered part of pharmaceutical policies implemented by regions to govern access of medicines to regional market. However, they have been actually challenged, because of their presumed impact on differences of patient’s access across the regions. The paper aimed at investigating the current status of RF and Regional Therapeutic Committees (CTR) and at suggesting/recommending possible reforms. The current status was investigated through a questionnaire administered to the regional pharmaceutical departments. Recommendations were retrieved from a multi-stakeholder work group carried out on 30-31 March 2023, embedded into a Forum focused on the regional pharmaceutical policies. Nineteen out of twenty-one regions responded to the survey: 12 use RF, mainly managed by the CTR; the RF frequency of update and the time needed for drugs listing greatly vary across regions; pharmacists, specialists and general practitioners are always represented in CTR, whereas other healthcare professionals and experts are more rarely involved; in 3 regions the CTR does not publish any RF update; the CTR mainly rely, to take decisions, on the dimension of the target population, the cost of therapy compared to alternative treatments and the impact on pharmaceutical expenditure. The working group recommended to overcome the RFs, if they are merely considered a list of available drugs at regional level, focusing CTR activities to ensure market access and to govern the prescribing behaviour, and strengthening/anticipating the flow of information from the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to the regions, to enable a more efficient approach to local access to drugs.

Introduction: The present work aims to discuss the current scenario of procedures and regulations regarding budget impact analysis/models (BIA/BIM) at regional level in Italy and to provide a standardized approach and detailed recommendations for developing these analyses. Method: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to collect existing guidelines or specific regional procedures for budget impact analysis in Italy. All the records were analysed in qualitative terms according to a pre-specified analytical framework, based on the ISPOR BIA guidelines. At the end of the analysis, a consensus questionnaire was developed to establish agreed approaches and to provide possible solutions to any critical issues. A list of 39 statements was developed. The survey was distributed to 69 experts who rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as more than 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing with any given statement. Results: Sisty-nine experts answered the questionnaire; a total of 30/39 statements achieved consensus. There was agreement on most of the statements. Time horizon to consider and costs were the issues on which no agreement was found. The results allowed the working group to define a list of good practices. Conclusion: While the structure and development of BIM are now well-known and well-applied at national level, there remains a great diversity of management of BIM tools at regional level. Consensus was reached among participating experts, as to the main characteristics, determinants and features of regional BIA/BIM in the perspective of the Italian payer.

This document illustrates the results of a discussion of two multi-disciplinary expert panels on pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Experts work in different organizations. The discussion focused on comparator(s), endpoint(s), negotiation of prices of new medicines and/or indications to include in the List 648, as well as the role of cost-effectiveness in the price and reimbursement negotiation. The debate took place during the fourth edition of the Seminari di Mogliano, organized on the 30th of September/1st of October, 2021. The two panels agreed on a general need to enhance interaction among the different stakeholders, in the early assessment and negotiation phases, and to increase the transparency/reproducibility of the decisions taken. The experts have also emphasized the need (i) to improve clarity in the evaluation of additional therapeutic value and the place in therapy with respect to comparators and how comparators are identified; (ii) to create work groups to identify the most appropriate endpoint(s), for each therapeutic area and level of unmet needs; (iii) to provide for a systematic use of cost-effectiveness when an added therapeutic value is delivered by a new medicine. With regard to the 648 List, the experts advocated for an overall reorganization of the current rules governing the special uses of drugs.