Is rate of return pricing a useful approach when value-based pricing is not appropriate?

Value-Based Pricing for Patent-Protected Medicines Over the Product Life Cycle: Pricing Anomalies in the "Age of Cures" and Their Implications for Dynamic Efficiency

OBJECTIVES

Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for the value-based pricing of new medicines largely ignores the implications of limited market exclusivity (ie, patent-protection periods plus any exclusivity granted by regulators). This paper explores the implications of this methodological shortcoming, which produces several pricing anomalies with potentially unintended effects on research and development (R&D) incentives.

METHODS

We illustrate these implications by comparing 4 stylized examples of increasing complexity, from short-term cures for acute conditions to long-term cures for rare, health-catastrophic conditions.

RESULTS

(1) Conventional-CEA will project a different result than an adjusted CEA that considers generic or biosimilar entry; (2) free and flexible pricing of long-term treatments (eg, statins for hypercholesterolemia) or repeated-dose cures (eg, insulin for type 1 diabetes) for chronic conditions will likely result in predictable price increases at the end of the exclusivity period that may be perceived as unjustified or unsupported; and (3) one-time administration "cures" (eg, gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy) have the potential to allocate a large share of the social surplus to the manufacturer over the product lifetime, which may or may not be dynamically efficient per se, but may also inadvertently disadvantage the development of valuable long-term treatments or repeated-dose cures for chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

We highlight the need for additional research on long-term solutions to these issues that would aim to promote dynamically efficient global R&D. More work is needed on the following: (1) relationships between social surplus allocation and the amount and composition of global R&D, as we may be as likely to be encouraging excessive R&D in some areas as to be undersupplying it in others; and (2) relating the size of the surplus reward to R&D cost and, thus, the return on investment.

Assessing Definitions and Incentives Adopted for Innovation for Pharmaceutical Products in Five High-Income Countries: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The concept of health care innovation varies across organizations and countries. Harmonizing the definitions of innovation can augment the discovery of new therapies, minimize costs, and streamline drug development and approval processes. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to gather insights surrounding different elements of innovation in the USA, the UK, France, Germany, and Japan. The SLR identified studies that have defined innovation and captured the types of incentives provided to promote innovation.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched via the OVID SP platform on October 22, 2020. A secondary desk search literature review was performed to identify additional information of interest in regional languages: French, German, and Japanese. All the relevant literature in English was screened using the Linguamatics natural language processing (NLP) tool, except for articles from EconLit, which were screened manually using structured search strategies. Articles that describe a definition of innovation or refer to a definition of innovation published were included. All full-text articles were reviewed manually, and two reviewers independently screened the full texts for eligibility.

RESULTS

After screening, 90 articles were considered to meet the SLR objectives. The most common dimension of innovation identified was therapeutic benefit as a measure of innovation, followed by newness and novelty aspects of innovations. Incentives around exclusivities were found to be the most prevalent in the data set, followed by rewards and premiums. Among the different therapy areas, the largest number of innovations was targeted at oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR highlights the lack of a unified definition of innovation among regulatory authorities and health technology assessment bodies in five countries, and variation in the types of incentives associated with innovation. The targeted countries cover different dimensions of definition and incentives of innovation at varying levels, with a few focused on specific therapy areas. Harmonization and consensus for innovation would be needed across countries because drug development is a global undertaking. This SLR envisages a more holistic approach to evaluation, wherein the value provided to patients and health systems is accounted for. The results of this SLR will help to promote broader discussion among different stakeholders and decision makers across countries to identify gaps in policies and develop sustainable strategies to promote innovation for pharmaceutical products.

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options

BACKGROUND

The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna®, Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Zynteglo®, Zolgensma® and Strimvelis®, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah® and Yescarta®. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX® was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM.

CONCLUSIONS

Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.

Market access and value-based pricing of digital health applications in Germany

In December 2019, the Digital Health Care Act ("Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz") introduced a general entitlement to the provision and reimbursement of digital health applications (DiGA) for insured persons in the German statutory health insurance. As establishing a new digital service area within the solidarity-based insurance system implies several administrative and regulatory challenges, this paper aims to describe the legal framework for DiGA market access and pricing as well as the status quo of the DiGA market. Furthermore, we provide a basic approach to deriving value-based DiGA prices.To become eligible for reimbursement, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices evaluates the compliance of a DiGA with general requirements (e.g., safety and data protection) and its positive healthcare effects (i.e., medical benefit or improvements of care structure and processes) in a fast-track process. Manufacturers may provide evidence for the benefits of their DiGA either directly with the application for the fast-track process or generate it during a trial phase that includes temporary reimbursement. After one year of \]reimbursement, the freely-set manufacturer price is replaced by a price negotiated between the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds and the manufacturer. By February 2022, 30 DiGA had successfully completed the fast-track process. 73% make use of the trial phase and have not yet proven their benefit. Given this dynamic growth of the DiGA market and the low minimum evidence standards, fair pricing remains the central point of contention. The regulatory framework makes the patient-relevant benefits of a DiGA a pricing criterion to be considered in particular. Yet, it does not indicate how the benefits of a DiGA should be translated into a reasonable price. Our evidence-based approach to value-based DiGA pricing approximates the SHI's willingness to pay by the average cost-effectiveness of one or more established therapy in a field of indication and furthermore considers the positive healthcare effects of a DiGA.The proposed approach can be fitted into DiGA pricing processes under the given regulatory framework and can provide objective guidance for price negotiations. However, it is only one piece of the pricing puzzle, and numerous methodological and procedural issues related to DiGA pricing are still open. Thus, it remains to be seen to what extent DiGA prices will follow the premise of value-based pricing.

An integrated valuation model for payer and investor

BACKGROUND

In order to optimize positioning and associated drug price for both payer and investor, it is for a company essential to forecast the potential market access attractiveness for the new drug for different indications at the early onset of the clinical development program. This analysis must include the constraints from the perspective of the payer, but also the biotech companies, who require a minimum drug price to satisfy their investors. This paper aims to provide an Integrated Valuation Model for payer and investor, bridging concepts from health economics and economic valuation reflecting the perspectives of the payer and the investor for a drug in early clinical development phase. The concept is illustrated for a new hypothetical drug (Product X) in advanced breast cancer in 1-line, 2-line, and 3-line position.

METHODS

The Integrated Valuation Model includes the outcomes of the budget impact model, pricing matrix model, and cost-effectiveness model reflecting the payer's perspective. These models are interacted and linked with a discounted cash flow model in order to reflect also the economic value from the investor's perspective.

RESULTS

The maximum price in 1-line position is €269.7 for the payer and the minimum price is €14.7 for the investor, which are unit prices per administration corresponding with treatment regimens for the comparative treatments. In 2-line position, the maximum price is €274.1 for the payer and the minimum price for the investor increases to €184.5 for the investor because of the smaller market size in 2-line position, which leads to a smaller pricing corridor to satisfy both payer and investor. Consequently, Product X has market access attractiveness for both payer and investor in 1-line and 2-line position. However, the minimum price €942.7 in 3-line position for the investor is higher than the maximum price €283.3 for the payer, which means there is no market potential.

CONCLUSION

The practical strategic application of the Integrated Valuation Model is optimization of positioning and price of Product X. Hence, it can be a transparent tool in early-stage development of a compound based on upfront assessment of market access attractiveness for the payer and the investor.

Key Considerations in the Health Technology Assessment of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Scotland, The Netherlands, and England

OBJECTIVES

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are highly innovative therapies. Their costs and uncertain value claims have raised concerns among health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers. Little is known about how underlying considerations in HTA of ATMPs shape assessment and reimbursement recommendations. We aim to identify and assess key considerations that played a role in HTA of ATMPs underlying reimbursement recommendations.

METHODS

A review of HTA reports was conducted of all authorized ATMPs in Scotland, The Netherlands, and England. Considerations were extracted and categorized into EUnetHTA Core Model domains. Per jurisdiction, considerations were aggregated and key considerations identified (defined as occurring in >1/assessment per jurisdiction). A narrative analysis was conducted comparing key considerations between jurisdictions and different reimbursement recommendations.

RESULTS

We identified 15 ATMPs and 18 HTA reports. In The Netherlands and England most key considerations were identified in clinical effectiveness (EFF) and cost- and economic effectiveness (ECO) domains. In Scotland, the social aspects domain yielded most key considerations, followed by ECO and EFF. More uncertainty in evidence and assessment outcomes was accepted when orphan or end-of-life criteria were applied. A higher percentage of considerations supporting recommendations were identified for products with positive recommendations compared with restricted and negative recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first empirical review of HTA's using the EUnetHTA Core Model to identify and structure key considerations retrospectively. It provides insights in supporting and opposing considerations for reimbursement of individual products and differences between jurisdictions. Besides the EFF and ECO domain, the social, ethical, and legal domains seem to bear considerable weight in assessment of ATMPs.

Value-based pricing for advanced therapy medicinal products: emerging affordability solutions

The emergence of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), a disruptive class of health technologies, is generating important challenges in terms of value assessment and their high prices introduce critical access and affordability concerns. The aim of this article is to analyze the challenges of traditional value assessment and price and reimbursement methods in the evaluation of ATMPs and to characterize the current and prospective financing solutions that may ensure patient access and affordability for these health technologies. Standard Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is not designed for ATMPs, and may delay access to these health technologies, thus a broader concept of value is required. As a consequence, value-based pricing methodologies have been gaining terrain to cope with the specific challenges of ATMPs. The pricing and reimbursement framework should ensure the balance between encouragements to innovation and maximization of value for money for payers, through the attribution of a fair price to new health technologies. Early scientific advice by regulatory and HTA bodies to developers is key, as it will contribute to diminish the perspective gap between developers, regulators and payers. The high efficacy/high price dynamic of many advanced therapies will demand novel financing models, both in the EU and US. Managed entry agreements (MEA), with financing being conditional to the submission of additional evidence, associated with methods of leased payments, may offer effective strategies to address the uncertainties caused by the evidence gap associated with ATMPs, ensuring affordable and sustained access.

How to Prevent Vaccines Falling Victim to Their Own Success: Intertemporal Dependency of Incidence Levels on Indirect Effects in Economic Reevaluations

OBJECTIVES

Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses may inform the optimal choice of healthcare interventions. Nevertheless, for many vaccines, benefits fluctuate with incidence levels over time. Reevaluating a vaccine after it has successfully decreased incidences may eventually cause a disease resurgence if switching to a vaccine with lower indirect benefits. Decisions may successively alternate between vaccines alongside repeated rises and falls in incidence and when indirect effects from historic use are ignored. Our suggested proposal aims to prevent suboptimal decision making.

METHODS

We used a conceptual model of demand to illustrate alternating decisions between vaccines because of time-varying levels of indirect effects. Similar to the concept of subsidies, we propose internalizing the indirect effects achievable with vaccines. In a case study over 60 years, we simulated a hypothetical 10-year reevaluation of 2 oncogenic human papillomavirus vaccines, of which only 1 protects additionally against anogenital warts.

RESULTS

Our case study showed that the vaccine with additional warts protection is initially valued higher than the vaccine without additional warts protection. After 10 years, this differential decreases because of declines in warts incidence, which supports switching to the nonwarts vaccine that causes a warts resurgence eventually. Instead, pricing the indirect effects separately supports continuing with the warts vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Ignoring how the observed incidences depend on the indirect effects achieved with a particular vaccine may lead to repeated changes in vaccines at successive reevaluations, with unintended resurgences, economic inefficiencies, and eroding vaccine confidence. We propose internalizing indirect effects to prevent vaccines falling victim to their own success.

Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Overvalue Potential Cures? Exploring Alternative Methods for Applying a "Shared Savings" Approach to Cost Offsets

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs.

RESULTS

The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing.

CONCLUSIONS

Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments.

The political economics of cancer drug discovery and pricing

Drug discoveries can, when used appropriately, save lives. Since 1970, cancer death rates among people aged under 65 have halved in countries such as the USA and the UK. Despite pharmaceutical market imperfections and fears about the prices of new treatments, further progress should be possible during the 2020s. Anticancer medicine outlays account for 0.1-0.2% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of developed countries. Total cancer service spending typically stands at ∼0.8% of GDP. The affordability of these sums is a political calculation. Improvements in the efficiency of drug development and global access to effective therapies are desirable. However, from a public interest perspective, these goals should not be pursued in ways that understate the value of better treatment outcomes and threaten the funding available for ongoing innovation.

A Review of Methodological Considerations for Economic Evaluations of Gene Therapies and Their Application in Literature

OBJECTIVES

To identify methodological considerations discussed in literature addressing economic evaluations (EEs) of gene therapies (GTs). Additionally, we assessed if these considerations are applied in published GT EEs to increase understanding and explore impact.

METHODS

First a peer-reviewed literature review was performed to identify research addressing methodological considerations of GT EEs until August 2019. Identified considerations were grouped in themes using thematic content analysis. A second literature search was conducted in which we identified published evaluations. The EE quality of reporting was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.

RESULTS

The first literature search yielded 13 articles discussing methodological considerations. The second search provided 12 EEs. Considerations identified were payment models, definition of perspectives, addressing uncertainty, data extrapolation, discount rates, novel value elements, and use of indirect and surrogate endpoints. All EEs scored satisfactory to good according to Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Regarding methodological application, we found 1 methodological element (payment models) was applied in 2 base cases. Scenarios explored alternative perspectives, survival assumptions, and extrapolation methods in 10 EEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although EE quality of reporting was considered good, their informativeness for health technology assessment and decision makers seemed limited owing to many uncertainties. We suggest accepted EE methods can broadly be applied to GTs, but few elements may need adjustment. Further research and multi-stakeholder consensus is needed to determine appropriateness and application of individual methodological considerations. For now, we recommend including scenario analyses to explore impact of methodological choices and (clinical) uncertainties. This study contributes to better understanding of perceived appropriate evaluation of GTs and informs best modeling practices.

Trends in and drivers of healthcare expenditure in the English NHS: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

In England, rises in healthcare expenditure consistently outpace growth in both GDP and total public expenditure. To ensure the National Health Service (NHS) remains financially sustainable, relevant data on healthcare expenditure are needed to inform decisions about which services should be delivered, by whom and in which settings.

METHODS

We analyse routine data on NHS expenditure in England over 9 years (2008/09 to 2016/17). To quantify the relative contribution of the different care settings to overall healthcare expenditure, we analyse trends in 14 healthcare settings under three broad categories: Hospital Based Care (HBC), Diagnostics and Therapeutics (D&T) and Community Care (CC). We exclude primary care and community mental health services settings due to a lack of consistent data. We employ a set of indices to aggregate diverse outputs and to disentangle growth in healthcare expenditure that is driven by activity from that due to cost pressures. We identify potential drivers of the observed trends from published studies.

RESULTS

Over the 9-year study period, combined NHS expenditure on HBC, D&T and CC rose by 50.2%. Expenditure on HBC rose by 54.1%, corresponding to increases in both activity (29.2%) and cost (15.7%). Rises in expenditure in inpatient (38.5%), outpatient (57.2%), and A&E (59.5%) settings were driven predominately by higher activity. Emergency admissions rose for both short-stay (45.6%) and long-stay cases (26.2%). There was a switch away from inpatient elective care (which fell by 5.1%) and towards day case care (34.8% rise), likely reflecting financial incentives for same-day discharges. Growth in expenditure on D&T (155.2%) was driven by rises in the volume of high cost drugs (270.5%) and chemotherapy (110.2%). Community prescribing grew by 45.2%, with costs falling by 24.4%. Evidence on the relationship between new technologies and healthcare expenditure is mixed, but the fall in drug costs could reflect low generic prices, and the use of health technology assessment or commercial arrangements to inform pricing of new medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggregate trends in HCE mask enormous variation across healthcare settings. Understanding variation in activity and cost across settings is an important initial step towards ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NHS.