OBJECTIVES:  Risk-sharing scheme (RSS) has been implemented since Nov 2013 as part of policies to increase patients’ accessibility in Korea. This study aimed to compare the impact of reimbursement rate before and after the implementation of RSS especially in anticancer drugs and to review the characteristics of the anticancer drugs on risk-sharing agreement (RSA).  METHODS: Reviewed appraisal results for anticancer drugs in HIRA Drug Reimbursement Assessment Committee from 2007 to Jun 2015. The rate of reimbursement recommendation before and after RSS implementation and the proportion of RSA after RSS implementation were assessed. Drugs recommended after RSS implementation were classified into comparative clinical effectiveness-superior, non-inferior, similar- and cost effectiveness-assessed by economic analysis or weighted average price. From each category, the proportion of RSA drug and type of scheme were counted. RESULTS: During 8.5 years, total 86 appraisals of anticancer drugs, the reimbursement recommendation rate was 58.1%(50/86). The reimbursement recommendation rate was 55.4%(31/56) before RSS implementation and 63.3%(19/30) after RSS implementation. After RSS implementation, 19 appraisals of anticancer drugs were reimbursement, 10 of them were reimbursement on the condition of RSA (53%), and types of RSS were refund (100%). As for comparative clinical effectiveness of among 19 appraisals after RSS implementation, 16 were superior, 3 were silimilar to comparator. Among ‘superior’ group, 12 were assessed by economic analysis (CUA), 6 of them were on RSA (50%). The number of appraisals not assessed by economic analysis in superior group was 4, and they were on RSA. In ‘similar’ group, all were assessed by weighted average price and none of them were on RSA. CONCLUSIONS:  The implementation of RSS seemed to contribute to increase patients' accessibility to new anticancer drugs. RSS can be a compensating way to decision-making for reimbursement of anticancer drugs which are clinically beneficial but having uncertainty in cost-effectiveness.