Institutional design and moral conflict in health care priority-setting

Priority-setting policy-makers often face moral and political pressure to balance the conflicting motivations of efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment. Using the conflict between these motivations as a case study can enrich the understanding of institutional design in developed democracies. This essay presents a cognitive-psychological account of the conflict between efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment in health care priority-setting. It then describes three sets of institutional arrangements-in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany, respectively-that contend with this conflict in interestingly different ways. The analysis yields at least three implications for institutional design in developed democracies: (1) indeterminacy at the level of moral psychology can increase the probability of indeterminacy at the level of institutional design; (2) situational constraints in effect require priority-setting policy-makers to adopt normative-moral pluralism; and (3) the U.S. health care system may be in an anti-priority-setting equilibrium.

Value elements and methods of value-based pricing for drugs in Japan: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements.

EXPERT OPINION

Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.

Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries

CONTEXT

Positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes can have important implications for equity, efficiency and timely patient access to novel therapies. Several outcomes and dimensions of benefit beyond utility feed into HTA processes.

OBJECTIVE

We analyse a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in 7 countries, to (a) test whether HTA decision-making is grounded in welfarist or extra-welfarist approaches; and (b) empirically determine the factors associated with positive HTA outcomes, the time to achieve these and establish the magnitude of inter-country differences in assessment processes.

METHODS

Data were extracted from publicly available HTA reports on drugs that received marketing authorisation between 2009 and 2018 (N = 1415). The outcomes of interest were the probability of positive HTA outcomes and the time-to-HTA outcome; these were examined with respect to clinical, regulatory, product- and disease-related, evidence uncertainty and contextual variables. Econometric models utilising survival analysis and multinomial logistic regression were specified.

FINDINGS

Positive HTA outcomes accounted for 87.3% of the sample (n = 1235), of which 71% (n = 1004) were restricted. Drugs with positive HTA outcomes were subject to clinical restrictions (n = 652, 46%), financial risk-sharing (n = 439, 31%) or had been rejected at least once (n = 282, 20%). Significant predictors of positive HTA outcomes were orphan drugs with cancer indications, high quality of evidence linked to clinical and economic evidence uncertainties which had been overcome, and contextual considerations, particularly innovativeness and unmet need. Comparative analyses revealed systematic differences between countries in their propensity to accept the same drugs, particularly oncology and orphan drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are contextual and reinforce arguments in favour of explicitly accounting for social value judgements, establishing separate assessment frameworks for highly uncertain products, adopting risk mitigation strategies for novel therapies with early phase evidence, and sharing of HTA practices across settings. Lastly, HTA agencies have adopted an extra-welfarist approach to value assessment and resource allocation.

The Inflation Reduction Act: How Will Medicare Negotiating Drug Prices Impact Patients with Heart Disease?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiovascular medications improve health and prevent early death. However, high drug prices reduce the use of these medications and strain the health system. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers and reduces out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. This article explores the potential impact that the IRA will have on the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiovascular disease medications are likely to be selected for price negotiations under the IRA, leading to savings for patients and for Medicare. Recent work suggests that the IRA's reforms to the Medicare Part D drug benefit will meaningfully reduce out-of-pocket costs for important cardiovascular medications. The IRA is expected to impact cardiovascular disease treatments via price negotiations and through the broader access to medications afforded by improvements to Part D coverage design.

Access to a novel first-line single-tablet HIV antiretroviral regimen in Affordable Care Act Marketplace plans, 2018-2020

BACKGROUND

A pillar of the United States' Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative is to rapidly provide antiretroviral therapy (ART) in order to achieve HIV viral suppression. However, insurance benefit design can impede ART access. The primary objective of this study is to understand how Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace qualified health plan (QHP) formularies responded to two new ART single tablet regimens (STRs): dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC; approved in 2014) and bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF; approved in 2018).

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive study of individual and small group QHPs to assess coverage, cost sharing (coinsurance vs. copay), specialty tiering, prior authorization, and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for DTG/ABC/3TC and BIC/FTC/TAF. All individual and small group QHPs offered in state ACA Marketplaces from 2018-2020 were identified using plan-level formulary data from Ideon linked to end-of-year data from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Individual Market Health Insurance Exchange (HIX).

RESULTS

For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, we identified 19,533, 17,007, and 21,547 QHPs. While DTG/ABC/3TC coverage was above 91% from 2018-2020, BIC/FTC/TAF coverage improved from 60 to 86%. Coverage of BIC/FTC/TAF improved in EHE priority jurisdictions from 73 to 90% driven by increased coverage with coinsurance. Although BIC/FTC/TAF had a higher wholesale acquisition cost than DTG/ABC/3TC, monthly OOP cost trends differed regionally in the Midwest but did not differ by EHE priority jurisdiction status.

CONCLUSIONS

QHP coverage of STRs is heterogeneous across the US. While coverage of BIC/FTC/TAF increased over time, many QHPs in EHE priority jurisdictions required coinsurance. Access to new ART regimens may be slowed by delayed QHP coverage and benefit design.

Do Health Technology Assessment organisations consider manufacturers' costs in relation to drug price? A study of reimbursement reports

Introduction

Drug reimbursement decisions are often made based on a price set by the manufacturer. In some cases, this price leads to public and scientific debates about whether its level can be justified in relation to its costs, including those related to research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Such considerations could enter the decision process in collectively financed health care systems. This paper investigates whether manufacturers’ costs in relation to drug prices, or profit margins, are explicitly mentioned and considered by health technology assessment (HTA) organisations.

Method

An analysis of reimbursement reports for cancer drugs was performed. All relevant Dutch HTA-reports, published between 2017 and 2019, were selected and matched with HTA-reports from three other jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia). Information was extracted. Additionally, reimbursement reports for three cases of expensive non-oncolytic orphan drugs prominent in pricing debates in the Netherlands were investigated in depth to examine consideration of profit margins.

Results

A total of 66 HTA-reports concerning 15 cancer drugs were included. None of these reports contained information on manufacturer’s costs or profit margins. Some reports contained general considerations of the HTA organisation which related prices to manufacturers’ costs: six contained a statement on the lack of price setting transparency, one mentioned recouping R&D costs as a potential argument to justify a high price. For the case studies, 21 HTA-reports were selected. One contained a cost-based price justification provided by the manufacturer. None of the other reports contained information on manufacturer’s costs or profit margins. Six reports contained a discussion about lack of transparency. Reports from two jurisdictions contained invitations to justify high prices by demonstrating high costs.

Conclusion

Despite the attention given to manufacturers’ costs in relation to price in public debates and in the literature, this issue does not seem to get explicit systematic consideration in the reimbursement reports of expensive drugs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00383-y.

Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA

Background. Previous research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs’ initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit. Objectives. To examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs’ initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. Data and Methods. 25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009–2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ²-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. Out of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07–6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38–8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17–5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14–30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications’ pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93–0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09–0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01–1.39], p < 0.05). Conclusions. Targeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication’s differential clinical and economic value.

How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence

BACKGROUND

Various forms of value-based pricing policies for new medicines have recently been introduced in OECD countries. While these initiatives are expected to have a positive impact on societal outcomes such as availability, affordability and value for money, scientific evidence on this impact is scarce due to confidential agreements.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the impact of value-based policy interventions in price negotiations on patient benefit in an experimental setting.

METHODS

An online experiment was conducted (n = 269). Participants were randomly assigned into the active role of either a buyer or seller in two intervention groups (cost-benefit, risk-sharing) and one control group. Decisions had real monetary consequences on other participants and through donations to a patient association.

RESULTS

Patient access, benefit and value for money were higher in the cost-benefit group than in the risk-sharing group. An available alternative to the agreement led to higher price offers. This effect was weaker in the cost-benefit group.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of price negotiations on patient benefit depend on the alternatives available for failed or delayed negotiations. A shared but voluntary valuation framework might increase patient access, benefit, and value for money. The cost containment effect of risk-sharing agreements may be offset by the negative impact on overall patient benefit. Further development of the approach could provide support for policy design of pharmaceutical pricing regulations.

Pharmacists' perceptions and attitudes toward drug importation into the State of Florida

BACKGROUND

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration released the Safe Importation Action Plan in July 2020 detailing methods to import medicines from Canada to combat increasing drug costs. In November 2020, Florida became the first state in the United States to create and propose an importation plan from Canada. This study examines the proposal submitted by Florida, Florida pharmacists' perceptions of the program on patient safety, and Florida pharmacists' thoughts on the pharmacy operational impact.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study utilizing an electronic questionnaire sent to pharmacist members of the Florida Pharmacy Association. The survey incorporated closed-ended and open-ended questions. The results from the study were reported and analyzed through descriptive statistics, qualitative and quantitative data.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and forty-four pharmacists responded to the survey. Of those respondents, 25% stated they had no knowledge about Florida's drug importation plan. Less than 12% of respondents stated they would trust the safety and quality of imported medicines. Seventy percent of pharmacists expressed concerns regarding the changes required in pharmacy operations to increase medicine safety. About half of the respondents questioned whether this plan would promote cost-savings as intended.

CONCLUSION

Florida pharmacists believe the drug importation plan does not address all aspects of patient and medicine safety and expressed concerns regarding logistical operations of a pharmacy. This article highlights those concerns and acts as a summons to action.

Price Is Right: Exploring Prescription Drug Coverage Barriers for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Using Threshold Pricing Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prescription drug costs exert profound effects on commercial insurance coverage and access to effective therapy.

AIMS

We aimed to assess threshold pricing to achieve budget neutrality of FDA-approved drugs treating irritable bowel syndrome from an insurance perspective, based on cost-savings resulting in decreased healthcare utilization through effective disease management.

METHODS

We constructed a decision-analytic model from an insurance perspective to assess the budget impact of IBS prescription drugs under usual insurance coverage levels in practice: (1) unrestricted drug access or (2) step therapy in a primary care population of middle-age, care-seeking IBS patients. Budget-neutral drug prices were then calculated which resulted in $0 budget impact to insurers with a short-term, one-year time horizon.

RESULTS

If used according to FDA labeling, IBS-D drugs cost between $4778 and $16,844 per year and IBS-C drugs cost between $4319 and $4955 per year. These drug costs often exceed insurance expenditures of $6999 for IBS-D and $3929 for IBS-C if left untreated. Therefore, for drugs to have $0 budget impact to insurers, their prices would need to be discounted 36.7-74.2% for IBS-D drugs and 59.3-82.5% for IBS-C. IBS drugs are already priced to support step therapy "failing one of several common, inexpensive IBS treatments with a responder rate > 30-40%," reflecting the subpopulation with more severe disease and greater healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader prescription drug coverage for patients failing common, inexpensive IBS treatments to which at least 30-40% of patients would typically respond appears warranted to enable gastroenterologists to offer personalized approaches targeting specific mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease.

The Price of Progress: Cost, Access, and Adoption of Novel Cardiovascular Drugs in Clinical Practice

Purpose of Review

The launch of new effective and safe cardiovascular drugs has produced large gains in health outcomes for several cardiovascular conditions. But this innovation comes at the cost of rapidly increasing pharmaceutical spending and high out-of-pocket costs.

Recent Findings

In the USA, manufacturers are able to set prices according to what the market will bear rather than value to patients or society, with a complicated system of discounts and rebates obscuring the final price borne by payors. Some of these costs are passed on to patients in the form of co-payments or co-insurance, making these effective but high-cost medications unaffordable for many patients. Orphan drugs developed to treat rare diseases—for which manufactures are presented substantial financial and regulatory benefits—are particularly problematic, as they typically enter the market at very high prices compared with drugs for other indications.

Summary

Systematic cost-effectiveness analyses from the healthcare sector or societal perspectives can help identify the value-based price of a medication at market entry as well as later in the lifecycle of the drug when more data on effectiveness and safety becomes available. Despite bipartisan support, legislative progress on drug pricing has been slow. Clinicians should know the cost of the drugs they prescribe frequently, use generics where feasible, and regularly discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients to pre-empt cost-related non-adherence.

Pharmaceutical drug development: high drug prices and the hidden role of public funding

In 2019, the record for the most expensive drug was broken at US$2.1 million per patient. The high costs of new drugs are justified by the pharmaceutical industry as the expense required for maintaining research and development (R&D) pipelines. However, this does not take into account that globally the public pays for between one to two-thirds of upfront R&D costs through taxpayers or charitable donations. Governments are effectively paying twice for medicines; first through R&D, and then paying the high prices upon approval. High drug prices distort research priorities, emphasising financial gains and not health gains. In this manuscript, issues surrounding the current patent-based drug development model, public funding of research and pharmaceutical lobbying will be addressed. Finally, innovations in drug development to improve public health needs and guaranteeing medication access to patients will be explored.

Priceless Knowledge: Attitudes and Awareness Around Drug Pricing Among US Medical Students

High US drug costs have garnered increasing attention, with multiple proposed reforms. While physicians are key stakeholders, medical education about drug pricing is not described, and medical students' understanding and attitudes are poorly understood. To assess students' awareness of drug pricing and its determinants, the authors conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of US medical students. Survey items included attitudes and knowledge around drug pricing and relevant education received (e.g., importance, quantity/quality of instruction). A composite knowledge score summed correct responses to 10 knowledge items. Descriptive statistics and t tests were used to evaluate associations. Among 815 viewers of the survey invitation, 361 visited the survey and 240 completed it (view rate 44%; participation rate 77%; completion rate 87%). Most participants were white (62%), in MD programs (82%), and female (53%). Nearly all (> 99%) said it was somewhat or very important to understand factors influencing drug pricing; over 90% were interested in learning more. Among year 3-4 students (n = 108), 59% reported receiving medical school instruction on pricing; few rated the quantity as adequate (7%) or the quality as excellent (3%) or good (8%). Among 10 knowledge questions, the median correct score was 6. Fewer than half (44%) knew that prices are uncorrelated with research/development costs. Knowledge was associated with year in school (p = 0.011) but not reported instructional quality or quantity. In sum, medical students report interest in drug pricing but inadequate instruction, and their knowledge is incomplete. Enhanced education is needed to equip future doctors to advocate effectively for patients around drug prices.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01190-x.

A comparison of medication access services at 340B and non-340B hospitals

BACKGROUND

For patients that face barriers to filling their prescriptions, the availability of medication access services at their site of care can mean the difference between receiving prescribed drug therapy, and undue interruptions in care. Hospitals often provide medication access services that are not reimbursed by payers; however, they can be challenging to sustain. The 340B Drug Pricing Program allows covered entities to generate savings through discounted pricing for certain outpatient medications, which can then be used to provide more comprehensive services, including medication access services.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize medication access services provided at hospitals that participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program compared to hospitals that do not participate in the 340B Program.

METHODS

Primary questionnaire response data was collected from a national sample of Directors of Pharmacy at non-federal acute care hospitals from March 2019 to May 2019. American Hospital Association Data Viewer was used to collect demographic information on 1,531 hospitals. Hospitals were excluded if they had 199 beds or fewer, did not have a unique Medicare provider ID, were federally owned, were located outside the continental U.S., or were non-acute care hospitals that served niche patient populations. This study utilized a proportional stratified sampling strategy to administer an electronic questionnaire to 340B and non-340B hospitals to assess the number and type of medication access service offerings. A final randomized sample of 500 hospitals were administered the questionnaire, and data was collected through recorded responses in Qualtrics software.

RESULTS

340B hospitals provided a significantly higher average number of medication access services compared to non-340B hospitals (6.20 vs. 3.91, p = 0.0001), adjusted for differences in hospital size and ownership type. For all nine medication access services that were assessed, a higher percentage of 340B hospitals reported providing the service compared to non-340B hospitals. This difference was statistically significant for six out of nine programs assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

340B hospitals provided more medication access services, on average, than comparably sized non-340B hospitals, suggesting that hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program may be better positioned to create and administer programs that support medication access services.

60 Years after Kefauver: Household income required to buy prescription drugs in the United States and abroad

BACKGROUND

Assessing drug prices relative to income in the US compared to other Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries provides context for policymakers seeking to improve access and affordability.

METHODS

Using current drug p. rice and income data, we recreate a historical analysis presented in 1960 to the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly led by Sen. Estes Kefauver. We identified frequently prescribed generic and brand name drugs for US and international comparison by drug price category (low-price generics, mid-price brands, and high-price specialty brands) as a function of income. We further extend our analysis to consider US prices relative to the current Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

RESULTS

For the low-price drugs, all fell below 1% of all of the US income levels presented. Mid-price drugs were below 10% of income for those at the US median household income level but approached 30% of income for those at the FPL. High-price drugs varied greatly, reaching over 600% FPL for one product.

CONCLUSIONS

Americans receive bargain prices on par with international comparators for many low-priced generics drugs. For commonly used mid-priced drugs or high-priced specialty products, whether or not drug prices are considered a bargain in the US compared to international markets may depend on individual income. External reference pricing policies may help inform the negotiation for some drug prices, but affordability may still be limited for lower wage earners.

Good problems to have? Policy and societal implications of a disease-modifying therapy for presymptomatic late-onset Alzheimer's disease

In the United States alone, the prevalence of AD is expected to more than double from six million people in 2019 to nearly 14 million people in 2050. Meanwhile, the track record for developing treatments for AD has been marked by decades of failure. But recent progress in genetics, neuroscience and gene editing suggest that effective treatments could be on the horizon. The arrival of such treatments would have profound implications for the way we diagnose, triage, study, and allocate resources to Alzheimer's patients. Because the disease is not rare and because it strikes late in life, the development of therapies that are expensive and efficacious but less than cures, will pose particular challenges to healthcare infrastructure. We have a window of time during which we can begin to anticipate just, equitable and salutary ways to accommodate a disease-modifying therapy Alzheimer's disease. Here we consider the implications for caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and the US healthcare system of the availability of an expensive, presymptomatic treatment for a common late-onset neurodegenerative disease for which diagnosis can be difficult.

Consistency of new drug pricing in Korea: Bridging variations among personnel in price negotiations

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the performance of price negotiations, over a period of 10 years, and identify individual variations in pricing that directly affect the consistency of pricing decisions.

METHODS

Existing literature and relative regulations were reviewed, and data provided by the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) was analysed to evaluate the performance of price negotiations. To examine individual variations in pricing, hypothetical scenarios of four types of drugs were developed. These were subsequently given to the reviewers who have been actually conducting price negotiations at the NHIS.

RESULTS

Over the last decade, negotiations succeeded at a rate of 85.5 %, with a higher agreement rate in the more recent years. The reduction rate, via price negotiations, from the price approved for reimbursement by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), was 12.2 %. The survey results confirmed a significant individual variation in pricing. Especially, in the case of Drug N1, the higher-grade personnel and non-pharmacists tended to give higher prices with a significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The individual variations that would greatly affect the financial results were confirmed when making decisions on price of new drugs.For the consistency of drug pricing, some measures to minimise the variation of reviewers' judgement are needed.

How The ACA Reframed The Prescription Drug Market And Set The Stage For Current Reform Efforts

The Affordable Care Act contained a range of provisions that altered prescription drug access and affordability for patients, payers, and providers. Yet the act stopped short of instituting systemic changes in the pricing of drugs, in part to address concerns that more fundamental changes might disrupt the development of new medicines. Looking back a decade after the Affordable Care Act became law, we found that new drug approvals have accelerated and the therapeutic advances embodied in some novel medicines are substantial-as are the prices that companies are charging for them. The lack of affordability of prescription drugs has become an increasing challenge for American patients and payers, particularly those with limited budgets. In this article we consider how things have changed in the past decade and how missed opportunities in the Affordable Care Act's passage figure prominently in the current drug pricing debate.

Why High Drug Pricing Is A Problem for Research Ethics

The high price of drugs is receiving due consideration from ethicists, policymakers, and legislators. However, much of this attention has focused on the difference between the cost of drug development and company profits and the possible laws and regulations that could limit a drug's price once it reaches market. By contrast, little attention has been paid to the ethical implications of high drug prices for the research subjects whose bodies were essential to the drug's development. Indeed, the future price of a drug is routinely ignored and treated as unknowable during the ethical evaluation of the clinical trials that support its development. In this paper, I will argue that ignoring the future price of a drug during the research process is in tension with all three of the major principles of research ethics: it fails to show respect for the research participants, undermines the quality of risk/benefit judgements made by ethical review committees, and makes it impossible to judge future patient access and assess justice.

The rising cost of commonly used emergency department medications (2006-15)

OBJECTIVE

We determine how aggregate costs have changed for commonly used emergency department (ED) medications, and assess drivers of cost increases.

METHODS

Using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we identified the top 150 ED medications administered and prescribed at discharge in 2015. We used average wholesale prices (AWP) for each year from 2006 to 15 from the Red Book (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Average wholesale price per patient (AWPP) was calculated by dividing AWP by drug uses. This was then multiplied by the total drug administrations or prescriptions to estimate the total cost in a given the year. All prices were converted to 2015 dollars.

RESULTS

Aggregate costs of drugs administered in the ED increased from $688.7 million in 2006 to $882.4 million in 2015. For discharge prescriptions, aggregate costs increased from $2.031 billion in 2006 to $4.572 billion in 2015. AWPP for drugs administered in the ED in 2015 was 14.5% higher than in 2006 and 24.3% higher at discharge. The largest absolute increase in AWPP for drugs administered was for glucagon, which increased from $111 in 2006 to $235 in 2015. The largest AWPP increase at discharge was for epinephrine auto-injector, which increased from $124 in 2006 and to $481 in 2015.

CONCLUSION

Over the course of the study period, the aggregate costs of the most common medications administered in the ED increased by 28% while the costs of medications prescribed at discharge increased 125%.

A Comparative Study of the Market Configuration of the Japanese Pharmaceutical Market Using the Gini Coefficient and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

BACKGROUND

As of 2015, the Japanese pharmaceutical market was the world's third largest pharmaceutical market. Although previous studies have examined market differences in terms of market size and pricing policy, little is known about comparative market configurations. The present study provides a comparative analysis of pharmaceutical market configurations in Japan and five other markets.

METHODS

Based on data for the 100 top-selling drugs in 2014 in Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the global market, we explored differences in market configurations using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, Lorenz curves, and Gini coefficients. We also investigated market trends by analyzing changes in sales, sales volume, and price.

RESULTS

The 100 top-selling drugs accounted for a lower share of the total market in Japan, France, and Germany as compared to the United States and the United Kingdom. The market deviation of the 100 top-selling drugs indicated by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index and Gini coefficient was smallest in Japan. Sales of most of the top-100 drugs increased in all the countries studied; however, directional price changes differed by country and sales volume trend.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that market deviations in Japan were relatively low compared with those in other developed countries, suggesting that some of the more beneficial drugs in other developed countries obtain relatively fewer benefits from the Japanese pharmaceutical market, and some less beneficial drugs obtained more benefits.

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) (November 4-6, 2019 - Copenhagen, Denmark)

With 2019 shaping up to be another significant year for health economics and outcomes research, and increasingly innovative health technologies affecting both the cost and impact of healthcare decisions, rapid change is affecting healthcare systems in real time. The theme of this year's International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe annual meeting was centered on digital transformation of healthcare; over 4,000 attendees from over 90 countries spent the day in the discussion of the changing roles and shared responsibilities of increased digitization, which involves major changes not only in technology but also in the way care is organized and delivered.

How will recent trade agreements that extend market protections for brand-name prescription pharmaceuticals impact expenditures and generic access in Canada?

Canada recently entered into two multinational trade agreements (i.e., the Canada, United States, and Mexico Trade Agreement; and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union). The resulting federal policy changes will prolong periods of market protection afforded to eligible brand-name prescription drugs by extending competition-blocking patent and data exclusivity terms. While previous studies have analysed these two policy changes in isolation, it remains unknown what the total combined impact will be in a typical year. Our objective was to design an analytic approach that can assess more than one change to a country's market protections and then to apply this methodology to the Canadian context. We find that the collective impact of these policy changes will be to extend the regulatory protection period for new drugs from an average of 10.0 years to 11.1 years. Depending upon the model's assumptions and all contingencies considered, an 11% increase equated to an average of $410 million annually (with a minimum estimate of $40 million and a maximum of $1.4 billion). Despite this uncertainty reflected in the range of possible financial impacts, we conclude that such methodological approaches could be useful for rapidly evaluating potential policy changes prior to adoption, which may further assist in budget planning to mitigate increased cost to the downstream health authorities most impacted by these trade concessions.

Why Are New Drugs Expensive and How Can They Stay Affordable?

Increasing life expectancy leading to a higher median age causes an increasing need for healthcare resources, which is aggravated by an increasing prevalence of preventable diseases such as type 2 diabetes. This includes increasing expenditures for medicines, although these increases when expressed as a share of overall societal wealth are more moderate than often claimed. An increasing use of generic medicines (currently about 90% of all prescriptions) means that costs for discovery and development of innovative drugs must be recovered on a shrinking percentage of prescriptions. However, the key challenge to affordable drugs is exponentially increasing costs to bring a new medicine to the market, which in turn are largely driven by an about 90% attrition rate after start of clinical development. While many factors will be required in concert to keep innovative medicines affordable, reducing attrition appears to be the factor with the greatest potential to contain escalating drug development costs and thereby medication expenditures.

Using 340B drug discounts to provide a financially sustainable medication discharge service

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was intended to stretch federal resources by providing significant discounts to covered entities providing care to underserved populations. Program implementation and evidence of expanding services to higher income patients has brought more scrutiny and calls for elimination of the program. While additional review and reform may be warranted, profitability from 340B discounts enables covered entities to provide additional services that may not be feasible in absence of the program. This case report demonstrates one institution's use of 340B discounts to financially justify providing bedside medication delivery services for patients at the time of discharge from an inpatient admission. A simple financial model was developed using hospital data and inputs from available literature to estimate gross profit and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) with and without 340B discounts. Without the 340B drug price discounts, the service would operate at a financial loss, and further investigation must be done to determine whether other clinical or economic benefits would warrant discharge medication delivery at the institution.

Ethical Overview of Pharmaceutical Industry Policies in Turkey from Various Perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Countries' national drug policies include all key stakeholders (pharmacists, physicians, pharmaceutical firms, and patients) in the public, the private sector, and the field of pharmacy. The aim of this study was to outline pharmaceutical patents and data protection, orphan drugs, drug pricing, and surplus goods regarding pharmacoeconomics, promotions, inspections in the pharmaceutical industry, and policies in pharmacies with respect to buying and selling drugs, and to discuss ethics in particular.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Written laws in force relating to drugs in Turkey constitute the materials of this study.

RESULTS

Essential medicines must always be accessible. Both governments and pharmaceutical companies must fulfill the obligations imposed on them in an ethical way. Research and development activities must also be carried out for orphan drugs. While pricing drugs, authorities must take pharmacoeconomic evaluations into account.

CONCLUSION

Drugs must be accessible and in the first grade at all times under all circumstances because a product cannot replace it. The concept of surplus goods should be revised to ensure the common needs of the pharmaceutical industry, warehouses, and pharmacies. Promotions in the field by the pharmaceutical industry should be made based on scientific evidence in an ethical way. Inspectors should perform meticulous pharmaceutical industry inspections.

Branded prescription drug spending: a framework to evaluate policy options

Background

High drug spending is a concern for policy makers due to limits on access for patients. Numerous policies have been proposed to address high drug spending. The existence of multifarious proposals makes it difficult for policy makers to consider all the alternatives. We developed an approach to select the most viable options to present to policy makers.

Methods

We identified 41 different proposals in the peer-reviewed literature to reduce the level of spending or change the incentives for branded prescription drugs; ten of which we identified as promising proposals. Based on criterion used to assess various legislative proposals regarding branded pharmaceuticals we developed a framework to evaluate the ten promising proposals. We then used a modified Delphi technique to iteratively evaluate these ten proposals starting with the initial criterion. During each iteration, five researchers independently evaluated the ten policies based on available criterion and assessed how to modify the criterion to achieve consensus on what attributes the criterion were intended to measure. We highlight areas of disagreement to show where modifications to existing criterion are needed.

Results

We found general agreement for most policy-criterion combinations after three iterations. Areas with the greatest remaining disagreement include possible unintended consequences, the concept of value implied by many of the policies, and secondary effects by the pharmaceutical industry, insurers, and the FDA.

Conclusions

Our analysis provides an approach that can be applied to evaluate policy proposals. It also suggests factors that policy analysts and researchers should consider when they propose policy options and where additional research is needed to assess policy impacts. Developing an objective approach to compare alternatives may facilitate the adoption of policies for branded prescription drugs in the U.S. by allowing policy makers to focus on the most viable options.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40545-017-0115-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The year's new drugs & biologics 2016: Part II - Trends and highlights of an unforgettable year

This eagle's-eye overview of the drug industry in 2016 provides insight into some of last year's top stories, including disease outbreaks that drove R&D, orphan drug development, pipeline attrition, drug pricing, and the ongoing movement in M&A. We also consider recent political events in the U.S. and U.K. and their potential impact on the industry in the years to come, and take a glimpse into the crystal ball to anticipate the new drugs that may be approved in 2017.

Evidence Europe 2017. London, UK - February 22-23, 2017

As the political backdrop changes in both the U.S. and Europe, volatility in the pharma industry is beginning to be felt as the sector becomes sensitive to the uncertainty. U.S. President Trump has stated he will pursue an agenda against high U.S. drug prices and is expected to seek to repeal the Affordable Care Act, while in Europe, Brexit casts further unknowns in regulatory authorization procedures, trade and external reference pricing. With these factors in mind, Terrapin's Evidence Europe meeting provided for a very topical discussion on the use of evidence to define and communicate value in healthcare. With a particular focus on real-world evidence, the conference used presentations, panel briefings and roundtable discussions to foster debate on the challenges faced by industry as it negotiates the current fragile environment.

The year's new drugs & biologics 2015 - part II:Trends and highlights that marked a complicated year

This eagle's-eye overview of the drug industry in 2015 provides insight into some of last year's top stories, including drug pricing, orphan drug development, the FDA's priority review voucher system, pipeline attrition, and the ongoing movement in M&A. We also take a look into the crystal ball and anticipate the new drugs that may reach the market in 2016.

Pharmacoeconomics guidelines: The need of hour for India

Although the government pays for approximately 20% of drugs used in India, private out-of-pocket expenditure in India on health-care is one of the highest in the world. Preparing pharmacoeconomics guidelines will be an important step in order to establish Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in India. Areas in which HTA could be applied in the Indian context include, drug pricing, development of clinical practice guidelines and prioritizing interventions that represent the greatest value within a limited budget. All this calls for action, both by government and civil-society organizations, to make access to essential medicines a priority.

Applying rapid 'de-facto' HTA in resource-limited settings: experience from Romania

BACKGROUND

In attempting to constrain healthcare expenditure growth, health technology assessment (HTA) can enable policy-makers to look beyond budget impact and facilitate more rational decision-making. However lack of technical capacity and poor governance can limit use in some countries. Undertaking de facto HTA by adapting decisions taken in countries with established processes is a method that may be applied while building domestic HTA capacity. We explored the potential for applying this approach in Romania.

METHODS

As part of a review of the basic health benefits available to insured Romanians we examined the listing process and content of the Romanian drug reimbursement formulary. We assessed value for money indirectly by drawing on appraisals by UK's NICE, and for products considered cost effective in the UK, adjusting prices by the ratio of Romanian per capita GDP to UK per capita GDP.

FINDINGS

We found more than 30 of the top 50 medicines on the Romanian formulary unlikely to be cost-effective, suggesting that existing external reference pricing mechanisms may not be delivering good value for money.

CONCLUSIONS

While not taking into account local costs or treatment patterns, absent local considerations of value for money, this method offers a guide for both drug selection and pricing. Until robust local HTA processes are established this approach could support further analysis of existing prices and pricing mechanisms. Applied more generally, it is arguably preferable to external reference pricing, product delisting or arbitrary price cuts, and may support the future development of more rigorous, evidence-based decision-making.