ArticleBMC health services research2026
Exploring alternative funding mechanisms to improve patient access to innovative medicines.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the existence of universal health coverage for citizens in Thailand, patient access to innovative medicines remains a challenge given the rapid pace of scientific development and high cost of new therapies. Thai policymakers currently focus almost exclusively on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and budget impact without considering flexibilities for decision-making. Payers are deprived of tools to manage financial and clinical uncertainties resulting in severely restricted access for patients. This research aims to identify the potential funding mechanisms and implementation approaches in the Thai context to improve access to high-cost innovative medicines.
methodsA research program was conducted in two phases; focus group discussions with 21 key stakeholders and further in-depth interviews with senior Thai key stakeholders. The first phase sought participants’ ranking of the top five selected financing mechanisms according to feasibility and attractiveness. The second phase utilized in-depth interviews to explore implementation approaches within the Thai context.
resultsManaged entry agreements (MEAs) and ring-fenced funding for innovative medicines were viewed favorably. These approaches were deemed easier to implement, providing an acceptable balance of risk and effort between all parties in the ecosystem and efficiently improving patients’ outcomes. High-cost innovative medicines for oncology, rare diseases, and life-threatening diseases with no alternative treatments were recommended as prioritized therapy areas for MEAs. A key priority is a need for a framework to implement MEAs into the current Thai health technology assessment (HTA) process. Additional key considerations included the need to integrate innovative funding mechanisms and establish pilot projects to test the viability of MEAs in Thailand.
conclusionsIn conclusion, all participants acknowledged and endorsed using tangible financial-based solutions (MEAs and ring-fenced funding) for Thailand. Prioritizing equal access to innovative medicines by such initiatives will go a long way in promoting a healthier and more productive Thai society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.