Abstract

To improve the value of pharmaceutical spending, some manufacturers and payers have introduced outcomes-based contracts, where rebates are tied to specified outcomes. We reviewed the literature and interviewed key experts to assess these contracts' potential to slow pharmaceutical spending. We found that while outcomes-based contracts are increasingly common in the US, they are still limited by multiple factors — including the lack of meaningful outcomes data. Moreover, there is no evidence to date that they slow pharmaceutical spending or increase access. Experts favored having CMS test and rigorously evaluate this model to achieve a better understanding of the implications.