The adoption of digital health care within health systems is determined by various factors, including pricing and reimbursement. The reimbursement landscape for digital health in Europe remains underresearched. Although various emergency reimbursement decisions were made during the COVID-19 pandemic to enable health care delivery through videoconferencing and asynchronous care (eg, digital apps), research so far has primarily focused on the policy innovations that facilitated this outside of Europe.
This study examines the digital health reimbursement strategies in 8 European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and Israel.
We mapped available digital health reimbursement strategies using a scoping review and policy mapping framework. We reviewed the literature on the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and Web of Science databases. Supplementary records were identified through Google Scholar and country experts.
Our search strategy yielded a total of 1559 records, of which 40 (2.57%) were ultimately included in this study. As of August 2023, digital health solutions are reimbursable to some extent in all studied countries except Poland, although the mechanism of reimbursement differs significantly across countries. At the time of writing, the pricing of digital health solutions was mostly determined through discussions between national or regional committees and the manufacturers of digital health solutions in the absence of value-based assessment mechanisms. Financing digital health solutions outside traditional reimbursement schemes was possible in all studied countries except Poland and typically occurs via health innovation or digital health-specific funding schemes. European countries have value-based pricing frameworks that range from nonexistent to embryonic.
Studied countries show divergent approaches to the reimbursement of digital health solutions. These differences may complicate the ability of patients to seek cross-country health care in another country, even if a digital health app is available in both countries. Furthermore, the fragmented environment will present challenges for developers of such solutions, as they look to expand their impact across countries and health systems. An increased emphasis on developing a clear conceptualization of digital health, as well as value-based pricing and reimbursement mechanisms, is needed for the sustainable integration of digital health. This study can therein serve as a basis for further, more detailed research as the field of digital health reimbursement evolves.

Background: Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally accounting for more than half of deaths in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Cancer treatment is expensive and the high prices of cancer medicines have a huge impact on access in LMICs. Scarcity of pricing or affordability data is one of the major barriers in the development of effective and transparent pricing policies in LMICs. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding pricing, availability, affordability, and access to anti-cancer medicines in LMICs. Method: A systematic search was conducted across six electronic databases: PubMed, Medline/CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Springer Links, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The literature (from 2015 to 2020) was reviewed to identify original research articles published in English. Results: A total of 13 studies were included in the review with some having multiple outcomes: five studies on pricing, four studies addressed affordability, five studies reported on availability, and four studies on access to anti-cancer medicines. The studies showed that in LMICs, there are wide variations in cancer prices and availability amongst the medicine brands and across different countries, with less affordability by patients with low-income levels, sometimes leading to treatment abandonment. Conclusion: Given the importance of medicine availability and prices in patient access and medicine buying capacity of governments, multi-pronged policy and program approaches by multiple stakeholders are needed to ensure access to cancer medicines.

This study examines European decision makers\' consideration and use of quantitative preference data.
The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions.
Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences.
While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review reimbursement environment as well as pricing and reimbursement requirements for drugs in selected Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was performed in the period from November 2016 to March 2017 among experts involved in reimbursement matters from CEE countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania. A review of requirements for reimbursement and implications of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) was performed to compare the issues in above-mentioned countries. For each specified country, data for reimbursement costs, total pharmaceutical budget, and total public health care budget in the years 2014 and 2015 were also collected. Questionnaires were distributed via emails and feedback data were obtained in the same way. Additional questions, if any, were also submitted to respondents by email. Pricing and reimbursement data were valid for March 2017. Results: The survey revealed that the relation of drug reimbursement costs to total public healthcare spending ranged from 0.12 to 0.21 in the year 2014 and 2015 (median value). It also revealed that pricing criteria for drugs, employed in the CEE countries, were quite similar. External reference pricing as well as internal reference pricing were common in mentioned countries. Positive reimbursement lists were valid in all countries of the CEE region, negative ones were rarely used; reimbursement decisions were regularly revised and updated in the majority of countries. Copayment was common and available levels of reimbursement differed within and between the countries and ranged from 20 to 100%. Risk-sharing schemes were often in use, especially in the case of innovative, expensive drugs. Generic substitution was also possible in all analyzed CEE countries, while some made it mandatory. HTA was carried out in almost all of the considered CEE countries and HTA dossier was obligatory for submitting a pricing and reimbursement application. Conclusions: Pricing and reimbursement requirements are quite similar in the CEE region although some differences were identified. HTA evaluations are commonly used in considered countries.

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine and orphan drugs share many characteristics-both target small patient populations, have uncertainties regarding efficacy and safety at payer submission, and frequently have high prices. Given personalized medicine\'s rising importance, this review summarizes international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs as well as their impact on therapy development incentives, payer budgets, and therapy access and utilization.
METHODS: PubMed, Health Policy Reference Center, EconLit, Google Scholar, and references were searched through February 2017 for articles presenting primary data.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine articles summarizing 42 countries\' strategies were included. Therapy evaluation criteria varied between countries, as did patient cost-share. Payers primarily valued clinical effectiveness; cost was only considered by some. These differences result in inequities in orphan drug access, particularly in smaller and lower-income countries. The uncertain reimbursement process hinders diagnostic testing. Payer surveys identified lack of comparative effectiveness evidence as a chief complaint, while manufacturers sought more clarity on payer evidence requirements. Despite lack of strong evidence, orphan drugs largely receive positive coverage decisions, while personalized medicine diagnostics do not.
CONCLUSIONS: As more personalized medicine and orphan drugs enter the market, registries can provide better quality evidence on their efficacy and safety. Payers need systematic assessment strategies that are communicated with more transparency. Further studies are necessary to compare the implications of different payer approaches.

BACKGROUND: Only drafts of regulatory guidelines for the registration of biosimilars are available in Lebanon. We analyzed the results of a regional survey conducted in Lebanon to understand the impact of different parameters on the acceptance and future prescription of biosimilars. We also reviewed the current situation of biosimilars around the world. The study surveyed healthcare professionals from the Arab countries, Iran, Belgium and Italy. Data about the participants\' specialty, country of residence, their knowledge about biosimilars, biosimilars\' prescription, price influence and the manufacturer\'s credibility were collected.
RESULTS: 117 questionnaires were completed and returned: 46 (39.3%) respondents were oncologists. 72 (61.5%) respondents were Lebanese, and the others from Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Iraq, Sudan, Jordan, Iran, Belgium and Italy. 77 (65.8%) respondents had knowledge about biosimilars, of whom 48 (62.3%) considered biosimilars as biologics that demonstrate bioequivalence with the original biodrug and have all preclinical and clinical trials equal to those already performed with the original biodrug. 74 (63.2%) out of 117 respondents agreed that biosimilars in the Arab and Middle Eastern market are already marketed. Among the 48 participants who prescribe biosimilars, the main prescription driver was the drug\'s approval by the FDA and EMA (68.8%). 71 (60.7%) respondents considered that the main advantage of biosimilars is their lower price and 41 (35%) out of the 117 respondents declared that they should know in which country the drug has been tested/created before using it in their own country. 35% of the respondents thought that the cost of a treatment should not come before its effectiveness or safety/tolerance, given that the biosimilar will be less expensive than the reference drug.
CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilars\' acceptance and use is increasing worldwide. Only few physicians are aware of biosimilars presence in the market and do prescribe them in Lebanon and the Arab region. This could be mainly explained by lack of confidence in efficacy, safety, manufacturing process and price of these products, and lack of clear legislation. Thus, WHO is finalizing a new guideline for similar biotherapeutic agents. This could be a starting point for the Lebanese government to support the authorization of biosimilars.