IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i6d10.1007_s41669-024-00505-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians

Author

Listed:
  • Marion Tano

    (General Agency of Equipment and Health Products (AGEPS), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), 7
    Université Paris Cité
    Inserm, UMR S 1145, Paris University, Université Paris Cité)

  • Pascal Paubel

    (General Agency of Equipment and Health Products (AGEPS), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), 7
    Université Paris Cité
    Inserm, UMR S 1145, Paris University, Université Paris Cité)

  • Matthieu Ribault

    (General Agency of Equipment and Health Products (AGEPS), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), 7)

  • Albane Degrassat-Théas

    (General Agency of Equipment and Health Products (AGEPS), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), 7
    Université Paris Cité
    Inserm, UMR S 1145, Paris University, Université Paris Cité)

Abstract

Background In 2018, the French government introduced two mutually exclusive financial incentives to increase etanercept and insulin glargine biosimilar use. The general case redirects 20% of the price difference between the reference product and its biosimilars to hospitals for every biosimilar dispensed in community pharmacies from hospital prescriptions. The experimental case redirects 30% to prescribing clinical units after hospital selection. Adalimumab was added to these incentives in 2019, after its first biosimilar was launched. Objective This retrospective observational study aimed to compare both general and experimental incentives after 19 months to assess the impact of directly incentivizing clinical units for adalimumab biosimilars. Method The monthly number of adalimumab boxes dispensed in community pharmacies was linked to the corresponding hospital’s prescription using IQVIA Xponent data from November 2017 to October 2020. The monthly mean rate of adalimumab biosimilars was compared between incentive groups and subgroups depending on hospitals’ prior experience with the etanercept experimental case. Results General case hospitals had a significantly lower mean biosimilar uptake (16.7% vs 23.2%, p = 0.029) than those included in the experimental case. Twenty-three of the 40 hospitals in the experimental case and ten out of the 91 hospitals studied in the general case had already taken part in the etanercept experiment. Biosimilar uptake was higher, but not statistically significant, for hospitals with prior experience in the adalimumab general case group (p = 0.086). Conclusions This study confirmed that incentivizing close to physicians was more effective in increasing the biosimilar rate. It also suggested that previous incentive experience positively influenced biosimilar penetration.

Suggested Citation

  • Marion Tano & Pascal Paubel & Matthieu Ribault & Albane Degrassat-Théas, 2024. "Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 897-909, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00505-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00505-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.