↓ Skip to main content

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: Findings and Implications

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: Findings and Implications
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0559-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra Ferrario, Diāna Arāja, Tomasz Bochenek, Tarik Čatić, Dávid Dankó, Maria Dimitrova, Jurij Fürst, Ieva Greičiūtė-Kuprijanov, Iris Hoxha, Arianit Jakupi, Erki Laidmäe, Olga Löblová, Ileana Mardare, Vanda Markovic-Pekovic, Dmitry Meshkov, Tanja Novakovic, Guenka Petrova, Maciej Pomorski, Dominik Tomek, Luka Voncina, Alan Haycox, Panos Kanavos, Patricia Vella Bonanno, Brian Godman

Abstract

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 18 12%
Other 10 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 45 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 51 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,338,700
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#176
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,902
of 328,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#5
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.