Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Oct;34(10):1051-65.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0427-7.

BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles

William C N Dunlop  1 , C Daniel Mullins  2 , Olaf Pirk  3 , Ron Goeree  4 , Maarten J Postma  5   6   7 , Ashley Enstone  8 , Louise Heron  8
Affiliations
Review

BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles

William C N Dunlop et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: To provide a framework for addressing payers' criteria during the development of pharmaceuticals.

Methods: A conceptual framework was presented to an international health economic expert panel for discussion. A structured literature search (from 2010 to May 2015), using the following databases in Ovid: Medline(®) and Medline(®) In-Process (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), EconLit (EBSCOhost) and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and a 'grey literature' search, were conducted to identify existing criteria from the payer perspective. The criteria assessed by existing frameworks and guidelines were collated; the most commonly reported criteria were considered for inclusion in the framework. A mnemonic was conceived as a memory aide to summarise these criteria.

Results: Overall, 41 publications were identified as potentially relevant to the objective. Following further screening, 26 were excluded upon full-text review on the basis of no framework presented (n = 13), redundancy (n = 11) or abstract only (n = 2). Frameworks that captured criteria developed for or utilised by the pharmaceutical industry (n = 5) and reimbursement guidance (n = 10) were reviewed. The most commonly identified criteria-unmet need/patient burden, safety, efficacy, quality-of-life outcomes, environment, evidence quality, budget impact and comparator-were incorporated into the summary framework. For ease of communication, the following mnemonic was developed: BEACON (Burden/target population, Environment, Affordability/value, Comparator, Outcomes, Number of studies/quality of evidence).

Conclusions: The BEACON framework aims to capture the 'essence' of payer requirements by addressing the most commonly described criteria requested by payers regarding the introduction of a new pharmaceutical.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with Ethical Standards WCND is an employee of Mundipharma International Limited. AE and LH are employees of Adelphi Values Limited (Adelphi Values Limited received budgetary compensation for involvement in the manuscript development). OP, CDM, RG and MJP participated in the advisory board meeting (in Vienna in December 2014); they subsequently voluntarily participated in the work on this manuscript, did not receive any honoraria for this manuscript and declare no conflicts of interest. OP, CDM, RG and MJP have all previously received honoraria/fees from Mundipharma International Limited for other advisory services. Author contributions WCND was involved in the conceptualisation of the pilot framework and the advisory board meeting. WCND, LH and AE were involved in the design of the search strategy, the conduct of the literature review and development of the manuscript and the BEACON framework. CDM, OP, RG and MJP were part of the advisory board, reviewed the pilot framework, contributed to the search strategy and research strategy, and reviewed and provided input on all drafts of the manuscript and the BEACON framework.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Development of the summary framework
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Selection of publications from the structured literature review.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Summary of the criteria covered by the identified frameworks
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Case study of BEACON use for assessing three hypothetical new medicines
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Grignolo A. Collaboration and convergence: bringing new medicines to global markets in the 21st century. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2013;47(1):8–15. doi: 10.1177/2168479012469951. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sansom L. Assessing the value of medicines. Pharm Med. 2010;24(2):89–92. doi: 10.1007/BF03256802. - DOI
    1. Epstein RS, Sidorov J, Lehner JP, Salimi T. Integrating scientific and real-world evidence within and beyond the drug development process. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(1 Suppl. 1):9–13. doi: 10.2217/cer.11.3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, Tyne C, Blayney DW, Blum D, Dicker AP, Ganz PA, Hoverman JR, Langdon R, Lyman GH, Meropol NJ, Mulvey T, Newcomer L, Peppercorn J, Polite B, Raghavan D, Rossi G, Saltz L, Schrag D, Smith TJ, Yu PP, Hudis CA, Schilsky RL, American Society of Clinical Oncology American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–2577. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6706. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe C. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):475–495. doi: 10.2165/11586420-000000000-00000. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources