• Biosimilars
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • All Topics
OHE OHE
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

News & Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Close
OHE OHE
  • Research & Publications
  • News & Insights
  • Education
  • Innovation Policy Prize
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

Research & Publications

All Publications

Filter by:
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Biosimilars
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Combination Therapies
  • COVID-19 Research
  • Digital Health
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Emerging Markets
  • EQ-5D and PROMs
  • Health Care Systems
  • Health Data and Statistics
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Precision Medicine
  • Real World Evidence
  • Use of Medicines
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Vaccine Research
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
  • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
  • Value, Affordability and Decision Making

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Education

  • Education Hub
  • OHE Graduate School
  • EVIA Programme

Innovation Policy Prize

  • The Prize Fund
  • 2022 Prize Fund

Latest Research & Publications

Proposal for a General Outcome-based Value Attribution Framework for Combination Therapies

CombTher_Adobe_photoguns_portrait
Read more
© photoguns
  • Digital Health

Navigating the Landscape of Digital Health – United Kingdom

Healthcare_Adobe_elenabsl
Read more

2021 OHE Annual Report to the Charity Commission

charityreport_lina-trochez-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© Lina Trochez/Unsplash

Supporting the Era of Green Pharmaceuticals in the UK

Sustainability_AdobeStock_270582392_landscape
Read more

Quality of life and wellbeing in individuals with experience of fertility problems and assisted reproductive techniques

Quality of life assisted reproduction Cover
Read more
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Value, Affordability, and…

Health Technology Assessment of Gene Therapies: Are Our Methods Fit for Purpose?

gene_therapies_national-cancer-institute-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© NCI/Unsplash
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Health Policy and Regulation

Limitations of CBO’s Simulation Model of New Drug Development as a Tool for Policymakers

CBO-US_mayer-tawfik-K4Ckc0AxgDI-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© Mayer Tawfik/Unsplash
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes

When Generic Measures Fail to Reflect What Matters to Patients: Three Case Studies

PROMS_unsplash_National Cancer Institute_landscape
Read more
© NCI/Unsplash
Close
OHE
  • All Publications

    Filter by:
    • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
    • Biosimilars
    • Cell and Gene Therapies
    • Chronic Diseases
    • Combination Therapies
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Digital Health
    • Drug Development/R&D
    • Emerging Markets
    • EQ-5D and PROMs
    • Health Care Systems
    • Health Data and Statistics
    • Health Technology Assessment
    • Precision Medicine
    • Real World Evidence
    • Use of Medicines
    • Value-Based Pricing
    • Vaccine Research
    • Economics of Innovation
    • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
    • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
    • Value, Affordability and Decision Making
    • News
    • Events
    • Insights
    • Bulletin
    • Education Hub
    • OHE Graduate School
    • EVIA Programme
    • The Prize Fund
    • 2022 Prize Fund
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
Back
  • News
11 min read 21st February 2020

Unpacking the Black Box of Payer Policy: A Demand-Side Approach for Equitable Uptake of Cost-Effective Health Innovation

People living in Middle and Low Income Countries (MLICs) do not get access to innovative treatments and new treatments meeting MLIC requirements do not come to market. These issues should be addressed through a demand-side approach— better payer policy in…

Share:
  •  Twitter
  •  LinkedIn
  •  Facebook
  • has-icon Email

People living in Middle and Low Income Countries (MLICs) do not get access to innovative treatments and new treatments meeting MLIC requirements do not come to market. These issues should be addressed through a demand-side approach— better payer policy in MLICs, supported by international actors, to speed development and dissemination. An Innovation Uptake Institute (IUI) can serve as an honest broker between country payers and suppliers.

People living in Middle and Low Income Countries (MLICs) do not get access to innovative treatments and new treatments meeting MLIC requirements do not come to market. These issues should be addressed through a demand-side approach— better payer policy in MLICs, supported by international actors, to speed development and dissemination. An Innovation Uptake Institute (IUI) can serve as an honest broker between country payers and suppliers. 

In a Briefing Note published by the Center for Global Development available here, authors Kalipso Chalkidou, Adrian Towse and Rachel Silverman argue that neither (i) current limited private sector markets in MLICs, nor (ii) donor push funding is delivering. The current model of push funding is problematic and may generate products that are inappropriate or unaffordable for the intended beneficiaries, frustrating donors, given the size of the investments they have made.  

With many high-burden countries facing a transition from external health assistance, and donors unlikely to expand or even maintain existing push initiatives, this suggests a grim outlook for future global health innovation and uptake. Recent CGD analysis suggests that governments are slow to increase expenditure on public health products following aid transition; instead, private expenditure—mostly out of pocket—rises quickly to meet growing demand. Scarce government expenditure is often not targeted to the most cost-effective health interventions but instead used to cover higher-level care demanded by vocal, growing, urban populations. This spend is largely unorganized, often inefficient, and almost always inequitable.   

We are likely to see: 

  • A continuing and deteriorating product pile up;  
  • Advocacy for voluntary or compulsory licensing and genericization of any successful innovations, further reducing the appetite for private investment in priority areas;  
  • Gradual (but slow) expansion of payer-side HTA-type mechanisms in MLICs, but likely to be used reactively in a cost-containment role, rather than to set priorities and support uptake;  
  • Investment of scarce MLIC domestic healthcare dollars in high-cost, hospital based high-tech innovation, despite weak systems and professional skills 
  • MLICs continuing to pay high prices even for commoditised products. 

The authors propose establishing an Innovation Uptake Institute (IUI) to serve as an honest broker between country payers and suppliers, helping payers to bolster their strategic capacity through market intelligence, capacity-building, and shared technical resources.   Specifically, they see a need to strengthen country payers through (1) better national purchasing functions; (2) effective support from international bodies and institutions to inform national purchasing; and (3) international cooperation, with large middle-income countries at the helm, to coordinate and/or pool demand. Ten tools stand out as particularly promising. Table 1 maps the 10 solution tools identified in the article along three component parts of the product lifecycle.  

Table 1: Mapping Challenges with Support Tools that can offer Solutions  

Identified Challenges 

Applicable Support Tools 

Discovery and Development (LMICs need more of the “right” new products and fewer “wrong” products) 

  • Lack of clear market signals limits (i) efficient, equitable, uptake and, therefore (ii) private sector investment in R&D and manufacturing to deliver innovative products to LMICs 
  • Donor-funded push funding may be generating products that are inappropriate or unaffordable for the intended beneficiaries, who may nonetheless be pressured to adopt them. Donor funding is also limited, and many high-burden countries face a transition from external health assistance. 
  • Most MNCs respond by focusing on OOP or richer population subgroups. Donor push funding has created upstream pipelines, but donor funded market shaping has had limited impact on uptake 
  • For now, despite ongoing push investments, major gaps in the innovation landscape remain. 
  • Scientific advice/early HTA 
  • Market Intelligence Templates 
  • Appropriate use of domestic industrial/science policy 
  • Strategic procurement and contracting including Value Based advanced market commitment (MVAC) type solutions 

Market Entry (Products do not get through the barrier of obtaining a licence, or a price, or a listing for public procurement) 

  • There is evidence of improved procurement, use of evidence informed HTA, and regulatory reform, but much more needs to be done. 
  • LMICs need to spend more on health care, but, importantly, they need to spend money efficiently 
  • Horizon-Scanning 
  • Value-based tiered pricing 
  • Use of HTA 
  • Pooled strategic procurement and contracting 

Delivery/uptake (Products do not get used in an optimal way to meet local health need.) 

  • Tools used in HICs to facilitate and manage uptake such as market entry agreements and the collection of real-world evidence are rarely considered in LMICs. 
  • Adoption of high-profile new interventions can sometimes be slow or non-existent, and anticipated health gains often go unrealized. 
  • Budget planning tools 
  • Use of Managed Entry Agreements and collection of credible real-world evidence 
  • Role of private MNCs in improving access in-country, beyond pricing 
  • Pooled strategic procurement and contracting 

 The IUI would aim to crowd in private investment in disease areas currently deprioritised by conventional industry by quantifying potential market size and supporting better coordinated/pooled demand. It would have a broad remit, including products yet to be developed, under development, or already in the marketplace; and serving a broad coalition of country payers and development partners. 

Though the IUI would focus on demand-side strengthening, the IUI itself would be fiercely independent from both the demand and supply sides—from suppliers, payers, and advocates alike—in order for its products and support activities to be trusted and effective. 

The Institute would need to pursue a mixed funding model, albeit with a dependence on donor grants at early stages and when targeting the poorest geographies with very limited ability to pay.   

In a crowded, dysfunctional, and likely unsustainable global health innovation ecosystem, payer policy remains an understudied and neglected function within the innovation value chain. By systematically and strategically strengthening payer policy, potentially aided through the establishment of a dedicated Innovation Uptake Institute, the global health community can begin to address some of the deep challenges related to misaligned innovation and low uptake of new and cost-effective products—improving access and health outcomes across MLICs. 

  • Emerging Markets
  • Economics of Innovation
  • External Publications

Related News

Prize event
  • News
  • January 2023

Professor Aidan Hollis wins first £40,000 OHE Policy Innovation Prize

Read more
  • News
  • October 2020

Opportunities to Increase Efficiency in Healthcare

Read more
  • News
  • September 2020

Cornerstones of ‘Fair’ Drug Coverage

Read more
  • News
  • September 2020

Establishing a Reasonable Price for an Orphan Drug

Read more
footer_ohe_logo

Leading intellectual authority on global health economics

Sign Up for the OHE News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

Research & Publications

News & Insights

Innovation Policy Prize

Education

Events

About Us

OHE Experts

Contact Us

Sign Up for the OHE News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

The Office of Health Economics (OHE) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (registered number 09848965) and its registered office is at 2nd Floor Goldings House, Hay’s Galleria, 2 Hay’s Lane, London, SE1 2HB.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

© 2023 Website Design

An error has occurred, please try again later.An error has occurred, please try again later.

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in settings.

 Twitter
 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Copy
 Email
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!