Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: U.S. Payer Experience.

BACKGROUND: As a result of global concern about rising drug costs, many U.S. payers and European agencies such as the National Health Service have partnered with pharmaceutical companies in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) by which manufacturers share financial risk with health care purchasing entities and authorities. However, PBRSAs present many administrative and legal challenges that have minimized successful contract experiences in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To (a) identify drug and disease characteristics and contract components that contribute to successful PBRSA experiences and the primary barriers to PBRSA execution and (b) explore solutions to facilitate contract negotiation and execution.

METHODS: A 37-item, web-based survey instrument (Qualtrics), approximately 20 minutes in duration, was open during July and August 2016. The survey was emailed to 90 pharmacy and medical directors of various health care organizations. Statistical analysis included the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests to examine differences among payer responses. Survey responses were anonymized and data were aggregated.

RESULTS: Twenty-seven individuals completed the survey (30% completion rate). The majority of respondents worked for regional health plans (52%, n = 14), covering at least 1 million lives (63%, n = 17), with at least 7 years of managed care experience (81%, n = 22). A total of 51 PBRSAs were active among respondents at the time of the survey. Easily obtainable and evaluable drug data and medical data were the most important drug and disease attributes for successful PBRSAs, respectively. Pharmacy claims and patient demographic data were assessed as "very easy and inexpensive" to collect. Type and amount of manufacturer payment for drug outcome performance failure, endpoint measurement, and necessary clinical data for drug performance measurement were all critical factors for successful PBRSAs. Standardized contract templates and transparent contract financial risk evaluation and modeling ranked highest among methods of manufacturer facilitation of PBRSAs. This study was limited by sample size and survey questions were limited to explanation of PBRSAs at the disease state level.

CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of PBRSA experiences, respondents noted that drug use in chronic medical conditions and objective drug outcome performance measurements were favorable drug characteristics and serve as the primary source of satisfaction for these types of contracts. Third parties and manufacturers can facilitate the uptake and success of PBRSAs by developing standardized contracting templates in addition to other methods that increase their stake in the arrangement. Looking forward, mounting perceptions of success in this realm of contracting for pharmaceuticals may contribute in the quest for value-based payments in the U.S. health care system.

DISCLOSURES: The construction of the survey and payment for survey respondents were supported by Charles River Associates. Parece is an employee of Charles River Associates. Goble and Ung are completing fellowship training sponsored by Novartis and Celgene, respectively, but do not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. Navarro reports consulting fees from Analysis Group, TEVA, and Amgen, unrelated to this study. Van Boemmel-Wegmann declares no conflict of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Navarro, Goble, Ung, and Parece. Navarro took the lead in data collection, along with Goble and Ung, and data interpretation was performed by van Boemmel-Wegmann, Goble, and Ung. The manuscript was written by Goble, Ung, Navarro, and van Boemmel-Wegmann and revised by all of the authors.