Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the costs and benefits of IPMs across all phases of implementation for key stakeholders (e.g., payers/HTAs, innovators, providers, and patients).
METHODS: We developed an IPM cost-benefit evaluation framework by adapting implementation science models. Using four case studies across different IPM types and countries, we conducted semi-structured interviews and gathered additional data to quantify and document implementation costs and benefits.
RESULTS: Across all case studies, IPMs addressed challenges that conventional contracts with simple discounts could not. Some, like outcomes-based agreements, were seen as temporary solutions, while others, like revenue guarantees, played a more lasting role in enabling access to innovation. However, IPMs introduced greater complexity and higher implementation costs for all stakeholders. These costs—spanning all phases—included human resources, opportunity, and transaction costs. The benefits, primarily tied to access and early access to pharmaceutical innovation, included health gains, anticipated revenue, cost savings, and financial certainty.
CONCLUSIONS: IPMs help address access and early access challenges in conventional agreements while offering benefits to payers (cost savings, risk-sharing), patients (health benefits), and the pharmaceutical industry (revenue, risk-sharing). However, they are often more complex and costly, with stakeholders experiencing costs and benefits to varying degrees, potentially causing implementation conflicts and misaligned incentives. The key to successful IPM implementation is ensuring mutual benefits for all stakeholders by reducing the implementation burden and limiting their duration to when the underlying issue is resolved and the expected benefits are achieved.