Since 2019 the Dutch National Healthcare Institute has operated a coverage with evidence development (CED) program for specific products with insufficient evidence of their clinical benefit: orphan medicinal products (OMPs), medicines with conditional marketing authorization (CMA), and medicines with marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances (AEC). The objective of this study is to give an overview of this program and reflect on learnings, challenges, and opportunities.

This study is a narrative policy review of the Dutch CED program and describes the different phases and stakeholder involvement. Additionally, an overview of the medicines included in the CED program is presented and put in an international perspective.

The CED program consists of four phases: candidate prescreening, research protocol drafting, signing of process agreement and financial agreement, and controlled access. Stakeholders are involved intensively throughout the process. Since 2019, six medicines have entered the program. The program is used to fill different evidence gaps for various types of medicines and indications. In other countries, these medicines are often included in restricted reimbursement programs.

The CED program is gathering clinical effectiveness data while providing patient access to OMPs, CMA, and AEC products. Important facilitating factors for the program were identified, including the involvement of all stakeholders, the only-in-research approach of data gathering, and the case-by-case evidence generation requirements and duration. Continuous evaluation is needed as the program does not yet include the expected number of medicines, and no conclusion can be drawn so far on the usefulness of the data collection.

Life-cycle health technology assessment (HTA) requires an index economic model to establish how estimated cost-effectiveness evolves with emerging evidence. We developed an open-source index economic evaluation of entrectinib, a tumor-agnostic therapy with conditional market authorization. Our objective was to replicate the initial HTA report from publicly available information, aiming to identify key operational and methodological aspects for operationalizing life-cycle decision-making.

We used partitioned survival analysis to determine tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific cost-effectiveness, using publicly available HTA reviews for parameterization. We estimated incremental costs in 2021 Canadian and US dollars (CAD and USD) from a public-payer healthcare perspective, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). We assessed the impact of treatment effectiveness, extrapolation assumptions, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) costs.

One-third of the parameters (n = 30) were unavailable in the Canadian reimbursement review and were sourced from international reviews. Tumor-agnostic incremental costs were CAD 68,451 (95 percent confidence interval: 35,466, 92,155) and USD 54,608 (28,294, 73,518), and QALYs were 0.13 (−0.42, 0.42), yielding INMB CAD −55,803 at 100,000/QALY (USD −44,518). Full extrapolation of treatment effectiveness also yielded negative INMB (CAD −66,664). Inclusion of NGS costs diminished the expected value. Heterogeneity was considerable across tumor indications.

We developed an open-source index economic evaluation to operationalize life-cycle HTA for a conditionally authorized tumor-agnostic therapy. Our findings outline key operational and methodological considerations necessary for the development of index economic models that support life-cycle HTA, offering insights into their potential integration into regular HTA and policy decision-making processes.