Implementation of AMNOG: An industry perspective
- PMID: 26332597
- PMCID: PMC4737288
- DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201300256
Implementation of AMNOG: An industry perspective
Abstract
In 2010, the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) of Germany passed a new law (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz, AMNOG) on the regulation of medicinal products that applies to all pharmaceutical products with active ingredients that are launched beginning January 1, 2011. The law describes the process to determine the price at which an approved new product will be reimbursed by the statutory health insurance system. The process consists of two phases. The first phase assesses the additional benefit of the new product versus an appropriate comparator (zweckmäßige Vergleichstherapie, zVT). The second phase involves price negotiation. Focusing on the first phase, this paper investigates requirements of benefit assessment of a new product under this law with special attention on the methods applied by the German authorities on issues such as the choice of the comparator, patient relevant endpoints, subgroup analyses, extent of benefit, determination of net benefit, primary and secondary endpoints, and uncertainty of the additional benefit. We propose alternative approaches to address the requirements in some cases and invite other researchers to help develop solutions in other cases.
Keywords: AMNOG; Additional benefit; Comparator; Early benefit assessment; Endpoint; Net benefit; Subgroup.
© 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.
Figures
Similar articles
-
[Requirements for drug approval and additional benefits assessment: Regulatory aspects and experiences].Nervenarzt. 2016 Apr;87(4):376-85. doi: 10.1007/s00115-016-0101-5. Nervenarzt. 2016. PMID: 27003322 German.
-
Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany - results from 2011 to 2012.Health Policy. 2014 Jun;116(2-3):147-53. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.12.008. Epub 2014 Jan 8. Health Policy. 2014. PMID: 24472328
-
[Benefit Assessment and Price Negotiation Under AMNOG: Calculable Process or Unfair Poker Game?].Gesundheitswesen. 2018 Jun;80(6):573-579. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-113600. Epub 2016 Sep 16. Gesundheitswesen. 2018. PMID: 27636366 German.
-
[Methodology for analysing quality-of-life data in the benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals].Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(2-3):111-9. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2014.02.008. Epub 2014 Apr 2. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014. PMID: 24780708 Review. German.
-
Regulatory guideline for biosimilar products in Korea.Biologicals. 2011 Sep;39(5):336-8. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2011.06.008. Epub 2011 Jul 23. Biologicals. 2011. PMID: 21784653 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparison of post-authorisation measures from regulatory authorities with additional evidence requirements from the HTA body in Germany - are additional data requirements by the Federal Joint Committee justified?Health Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;6(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s13561-016-0124-4. Epub 2016 Sep 29. Health Econ Rev. 2016. PMID: 27687714 Free PMC article.
-
Randomized controlled trials vs. observational studies: why not just live together?BMC Anesthesiol. 2016 Oct 21;16(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12871-016-0265-3. BMC Anesthesiol. 2016. PMID: 27769172 Free PMC article.
-
International Price Comparisons of Anticancer Drugs: A Scheme for Improving Patient Accessibility.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 14;18(2):670. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020670. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 33466893 Free PMC article.
-
Increasing Divergence in Drug Prices Between the United States and Germany After Implementation of Comparative Effectiveness Analysis and Collective Price Negotiations.J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Dec;25(12):1310-1317. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.12.1310. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019. PMID: 31778624 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Antman, E. M. , Wiviott, S. D. , Murphy, S. A. , Voitk, J. , Hasin, Y. , Widimsky, P. , Chandna, H. , Macias, W. , McCabe, C. H. , Brauwald, E. (2008). Early and late benefits of prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 52, 2028–2033. - PubMed
-
- Atkins, D. , Best, D. , Briss, P. A. , Eccles, M. P. , Falck‐Ytter, Y. , Flottorp, S. , Guyatt, G. H. , Harbour, R. T. , Haugh, M. C. , Henry, D. , Hill, S. , Jaeschke, R. , Leng, G. , Liberati, A. , Magrini, N. , Mason, J. , Middleton, P. , Mrukowicz, J. , O'Connell, D. , Oxman, A. D. , Phillips, B. , Schünemann, H. J. , Edejer, T. , Varonen, H. , Vist, G. E. , Williams, J. W. Jr ., Zaza, S. ; GRADE Working Group (2004). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 328, 1490. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Bender, R. , Lange, S. (2001). Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54, 343–349. - PubMed
-
- Beresniak, A. , Auray, J. , Duru, G. , Medina‐Lara, A. , Tarricone, R. , Sambuc, R. , Torbica, A. , Lamure, M. ; Echoutcome Study Group (2012). PRM14 European assessment of the validity of the QALY outcome measure: results from the experiment conducted by the Echoutcome project. Value in Health 15, A462.
-
- Bucher, H. C. , Guyatt, G. H. , Griffith, L. E. , Walter, S. D. (1997). The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50:683‐91. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources