ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to assess the value for money of introducing pneumococcal conjugate vaccines as part of the immunization program in a lower-middle income country, the Philippines, which is not eligible for GAVI support and lower vaccine prices. It also includes the newest clinical evidence evaluating the efficacy of PCV10, which is lacking in other previous studies.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted. A Markov simulation model was constructed to examine the costs and consequences of PCV10 and PCV13 against the current scenario of no PCV vaccination for a lifetime horizon. A health system perspective was employed to explore different funding schemes, which include universal or partial vaccination coverage subsidized by the government. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in Philippine peso (Php) per QALY gained (1 USD = 44.20 Php). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of parameter uncertainty.ResultsWith universal vaccination at a cost per dose of Php 624 for PCV10 and Php 700 for PCV13, both PCVs are cost-effective compared to no vaccination given the ceiling threshold of Php 120,000 per QALY gained, yielding ICERs of Php 68,182 and Php 54,510 for PCV10 and PCV13, respectively. Partial vaccination of 25% of the birth cohort resulted in significantly higher ICER values (Php 112,640 for PCV10 and Php 84,654 for PCV13) due to loss of herd protection. The budget impact analysis reveals that universal vaccination would cost Php 3.87 billion to 4.34 billion per annual, or 1.6 to 1.8 times the budget of the current national vaccination program.ConclusionThe inclusion of PCV in the national immunization program is recommended. PCV13 achieved better value for money compared to PCV10. However, the affordability and sustainability of PCV implementation over the long-term should be considered by decision makers.

Abstract-Achievement of universal health coverage requires better allocative efficiency in health systems. Countries like the Philippines, however, do not have quality local data for these decisions. We present a method that applies existing global data, e.g., Global Burden of Disease and Disease Control Priorities project, into creating a local priority list of diseases and interventions that may be useful in providing a rational plan for expanding coverage of health services paid by public financing. In the context of the Philippines, this refers to the Department of Health for vertical programs like immunization and disease control, and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation for inpatient and outpatient health services. We found that the top 48 (or 22%) of diseases account for 80% of total disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), reflecting a well-known concept in management, the Pareto principle. Due to its simplicity and widespread applicability, the Pareto principle facilitated interest in rational priority setting among high-level officials in the Philippine health sector. Priority setting must not be limited to disease burden and cost-effectiveness criteria. Our lists can be used after further deliberation and stakeholder consultation. Priority setting is a complex, value-laden process, and a purely utilitarian approach to prioritization may lead to further deterioration in the health status of vulnerable populations. We recommend that DOH and PHIC set up a joint, independent agency primarily responsible for implementing a sustainable, transparent, and participatory priority-setting process that will advise them on future service coverage expansions.

To ensure equitable access to medicines and vaccines, organizational efforts and purchase volumes have been pooled in joint procurements and negotiations for decades in some regions of the world, as well as globally through supranational procurement mechanisms. In Europe, countries started to collaborate on procurement and negotiations recently when it became increasingly difficult to ensure access to high-priced medicines, even in high-income countries. Two European country collaborations (the Nordic Pharmaceutical Forum and the Baltic Procurement Initiative) have successfully concluded at least one joint tender process for medicines and vaccines and the Beneluxa Initiative has concluded its first successful joint price negotiation. This article describes the experiences of these country collaborations. Challenges observed included: legal barriers; institutional and organizational differences between health-care systems in member countries; and the risk that suppliers will be reluctant to cooperate with country collaborations. Although these collaborations helped improve access to medicines and vaccines for the countries involved, in situations such as a global health crisis, larger-scale, more-inclusive initiatives are needed. In the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) initiative established a global procurement mechanism to ensure the equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines globally. Despite differences in organization and scale, the European country collaborations and COVAX have some similarities: (i) their success depends on the increased purchasing power associated with pooled order volumes; (ii) expert knowledge and previous procurement experience is pooled; (iii) they perform other collaborative activities that go beyond procurement alone; and (iv) they actively involve external partners and stakeholders.

BackgroundMany economic evaluations ignore economies of scale in their cost estimation, which means that cost parameters are assumed to have a linear relationship with the level of production. Economies of scale is the situation when the average total cost of producing a product decreases with increasing volume caused by reducing the variable costs due to more efficient operation. This study investigates the significance of applying the economies of scale concept: the saving in costs gained by an increased level of production in economic evaluation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations.MethodsThe fixed and variable costs of providing partial (20% coverage) and universal (100% coverage) vaccination programs in the Philippines were estimated using various methods, including costs of conducting questionnaire survey, focus-group discussion, and analysis of secondary data. Costing parameters were utilised as inputs for the two economic evaluation models for PCV and HPV. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and 5-year budget impacts with and without applying economies of scale to the costing parameters for partial and universal coverage were compared in order to determine the effect of these different costing approaches.ResultsThe program costs of the partial coverage for the two immunisation programs were not very different when applying and not applying the economies of scale concept. Nevertheless, the program costs for universal coverage were 0.26 and 0.32 times lower when applying economies of scale compared to not applying economies of scale for the pneumococcal and human papillomavirus vaccinations, respectively. ICERs varied by up to 98% for pneumococcal vaccinations, whereas the change in ICERs in the human papillomavirus vaccination depended on both the costs of cervical cancer screening and the vaccination program. This results in a significant difference in the 5-year budget impact, accounting for 30 and 40% of reduction in the 5-year budget impact for the pneumococcal and human papillomavirus vaccination programs.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of applying economies of scale in the cost estimation in economic evaluation, which would lead to different conclusions in terms of value for money regarding the interventions, particularly with population-wide interventions such as vaccination programs. The economies of scale approach to costing is recommended for the creation of methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluations.

methodological design in EPR [13]. As long as no concrete or welldefined solution to the medicines access challenge is implemented, a well-designed mix of existing and further developed policies is the next best option. These policies need to be tailored to the different types of medicines and to the country context. Despite their limitations, adequate pricing and reimbursement policies offer value in promoting equitable access to affordable medicines. Advanced methodologies and new evidence, including work presented at the 2019 PPRI Conference, should be considered. Pharmaceutical systems research at the interface of diagnosis and action In this respect, pharmaceutical systems research (PSR) can make a valuable contribution. PSR is a new discipline that derives from health systems research. Through descriptive case studies, it addresses topics such as the organisation and funding of pharmaceutical systems, policies (e.g. related to pricing, reimbursement, distribution and rational use of medicines), actors (e.g. authorities, stakeholders) and implementation procedures. Comparative crosscountry studies, either descriptive or analytic, help improve the pharmaceutical systems of different settings, in terms of affordability, efficiency and quality [14]. Finally, impact evaluations study the effects of policy implementation; using a pharmaceutical system lens can augment the policy relevance of these evaluations. In fact, PSR is a policy-supporting area of science that can support to work on solutions or, at least, improvements in the pharmaceutical policy framework of individual countries and globally. Fixing the future Is it sufficient to have debates, policy papers, scientific evaluation, methodology advancement, crosscountry best practices learnings and exchange experiences to improve pricing and reimbursement policies in Europe and other regions? Each of these pathways taken by policy-makers, payers, researchers and/or stakeholders offers value. Nonetheless, we need a combination of all to arrive from a thorough diagnosis to sustainable impact: we need wise and transparent policy-making, robust and multidisciplinary science, critical assessment of existing policies and tools as well as frank and indepth discussions. The 2019 PPRI Conference makes a significant contribution to providing a platform for these activities that are critical to promote equitable access to affordable medicines.