Systematic reviews of ten pharmaceutical pricing policies - a research protocol

A systematic review of policies regulating or removing mark-ups in the pharmaceutical supply and distribution chain

The regulation of mark-ups throughout the pharmaceutical supply and distribution chain may be a valuable approach to control prices of medicines and to achieve broader access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies regulating mark-ups are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies on regulating mark-ups against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32,011 records were retrieved, seven of which were eligible for inclusion for this review. The limited body of evidence cautiously suggests that policies regulating mark-ups may be effective in reducing medicine prices and pharmaceutical expenditures. However, the design of mark-up regulations is a critical factor for their potential success. Additional research is required to confirm the effects of these policies on the availability, affordability or usage patterns of medicines and in low- and middle-income countries.

Evidence on the effectiveness of policies promoting price transparency - A systematic review

Policies promoting price transparency may be an important approach to control medicine prices and achieve better access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies promoting price transparency are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies promoting price transparency against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32011 records were retrieved, two of which were eligible for inclusion. Although based on evidence from a single study, public disclosure of medicine prices may be effective in reducing prices of medicines short-term, with benefits possibly sustained long-term. Evidence on the impact of a cost-feedback approach to prescribers was inconclusive. No evidence was found for impact on the outcomes volume, availability or affordability. The overall lack of evidence on policies promoting price transparency is a clear call for further research.

How does external reference pricing work in developing countries: evidence from Iran

Introduction: Governments apply different pricing policies to ensure public accessibility, availability, and affordability of medicines. In this way, external reference pricing (ERP) because of its easy implementation is used widely across countries. However, ERP is completely path dependent, and it would both bring pros and cons, related to its implementing strategy which makes understanding of its impact in different countries challenging. In this study, we examine the performance of the ERP approach in Iran as a pricing tool. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study. Although Iran officially uses a reference country basket for ERP, in this study, we use different reference countries based on socioeconomic comparability, access to their price data, medicine pricing approaches, and pharmaceutical expenditure to examine the effect of reference countries as well as the method performance. Then, an empirical study was applied to a list of selected samples of medicines in the Iranian market to compare their price with our new reference countries. Then, we discuss the performance of ERP process based on the real prices in the Iranian pharmaceutical market. Result: The prices of 57 medicines, which contain about 69.2% of the imported Iran pharma market in value, were compared with their prices in selected reference countries. It was found that 49.1% of prices were more expensive in at least one of the reference countries, and in 21% of products, the average price in Iran was higher than the average price in reference countries. Conclusion: Achieving efficient and fair pricing of pharmaceuticals between and within countries is still a complex conceptual and policy problem that ERP in short term can handle. ERP cannot be considered a perfect tool for pricing alone, although its effectiveness is acceptable. It is expected that using other pricing methods alongside the ERP will improve patients' access to medicines. In Iran, we use value base pricing as the main pricing method for every new molecule. Then, we use other methods such as ERP as a complementary method.

Reimbursement and payment models in Central and Eastern European as well as Middle Eastern countries: A survey of their current use and future outlook

There is growing interest in innovative reimbursement and payment models in Central and Eastern European (CEE) and Middle Eastern (ME) countries. A questionnaire was sent to payers from CEE and ME countries regarding the current use of, future preferences for and perceived barriers with these models. Twenty-seven healthcare payers from 11 countries completed the survey. Results showed participants preferred using outcome-based reimbursement models and delayed payment models more often; however, currently they are rarely applied. Barriers hindering implementation were mostly related to IT and data infrastructure, measurement issues, transaction costs and the administrative burden. Given these barriers highlighted in our study, policymakers should focus on the development of an implementation framework with contract templates for the preferred reimbursement and payment schemes to aid the feasibility of a successful implementation.

When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations-Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs

This study aimed to identify the current experiences with and future preferences for payment and reimbursement models for high-priced hospital therapies in the Netherlands, where the main barriers lie and assess how policy structures facilitate these models. A questionnaire was sent out to Dutch stakeholders (in)directly involved in payment and reimbursement agreements. The survey contained statements assessed with Likert scales, rankings and open questions. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thirty-nine stakeholders (out of 100) (in)directly involved with reimbursement decision-making completed the survey. Our inquiry showed that currently financial-based reimbursement models are applied most, especially discounts were perceived best due to their simplicity. For the future, outcome-based reimbursement models were preferred, particularly pay-for-outcome models. The main stated challenge for implementation was generating evidence in practice. According to the respondents, upfront payments are currently implemented most often, whereas delayed payment models are preferred to be applied more frequently in the future. Particularly payment-at-outcome-achieved models are preferred; however, they were stated as administratively challenging to arrange. The respondents were moderately satisfied with the payment and reimbursement system in the Netherlands, arguing that the transparency of the final agreements and mutual trust could be improved. These insights can provide stakeholders with future direction when negotiating and implementing innovative reimbursement and payment models. Attention should be paid to the main barriers that are currently perceived as hindering a more frequent implementation of the preferred models and how national policy structures can facilitate a successful implementation.

Availability, Affordability, Access, and Pricing of Anti-cancer Medicines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Literature

Background: Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally accounting for more than half of deaths in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Cancer treatment is expensive and the high prices of cancer medicines have a huge impact on access in LMICs. Scarcity of pricing or affordability data is one of the major barriers in the development of effective and transparent pricing policies in LMICs. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding pricing, availability, affordability, and access to anti-cancer medicines in LMICs. Method: A systematic search was conducted across six electronic databases: PubMed, Medline/CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Springer Links, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The literature (from 2015 to 2020) was reviewed to identify original research articles published in English. Results: A total of 13 studies were included in the review with some having multiple outcomes: five studies on pricing, four studies addressed affordability, five studies reported on availability, and four studies on access to anti-cancer medicines. The studies showed that in LMICs, there are wide variations in cancer prices and availability amongst the medicine brands and across different countries, with less affordability by patients with low-income levels, sometimes leading to treatment abandonment. Conclusion: Given the importance of medicine availability and prices in patient access and medicine buying capacity of governments, multi-pronged policy and program approaches by multiple stakeholders are needed to ensure access to cancer medicines.