Defining the concept of fair pricing for medicines

Moon, Suerie; Mariat, Stephanie; Kamae, Isao; Pedersen, Hanne Bak

doi:10.1136/bmj.l4726

Cited by 42 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are ongoing discussions across Europe and in other countries concerning what is considered a fair price for a new medicine, including a new oncology medicine, depending on the perspective of the stakeholder [43,118,119].…”

Section: Fair and Transparent Pricing Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This includes concepts surrounding fair pricing incorporating proposed models from payer groups such as the International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM) and others [43,44,119,120]. Moon et al (2020) believe the price of a new medicine should allow for the societal need for that medicine; however, government interventions are usually needed to ensure a fair and equitable price to benefit all key stakeholder groups [119]. Typically, this means greater transparency around key issues including R&D, production costs, and pricing approaches [118].…”

Section: Fair and Transparent Pricing Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WHO (2020) in their recent guidelines on country pharmaceutical policies also ask for increased price transparency as well as potentially a cost-plus approach to pricing if the lack of transparency in price setting continues [45]. [119]. Having said thus, the European Cancer Leagues recently defined a fair price for a new oncology medicine as 'A fair price is transparent, understandable, affordable, proportionate and based on objective factors such as R&D investment, delivery, marketing and sales costs, and a clearly defined profit margin connected to the proven therapeutic value (if available compared with other treatments).…”

Section: Fair and Transparent Pricing Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Godman

Hill

Simoens

et al. 2021

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

show abstract

Section: Fair and Transparent Pricing Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fair and Transparent Pricing Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fair and Transparent Pricing Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Godman

Hill

Simoens

et al. 2021

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…off-setting the savings through resource use reduction) was 1.18 USD; CHX use instead of DCC at a price up to this threshold was found to lead to a direct cost saving to the healthcare system (without accounting for costs associated with purchasing other cord care products, such as methylated spirits). These data provide supporting evidence of the value that CHX could bring to the healthcare system for healthcare providers and manufacturers, which can be used to guide fair pricing regulation and policy [32]. Of note, the aforementioned budget neutrality does not take into account the potential social and health-related quality of life bene ts that would likely come from reducing rates of omphalitis and improving neonatal care, and this should also be factored into healthcare decision-making.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Cost and consequences of using 7.1% chlorhexidine gel for newborn umbilical cord care in Kenya

Brown¹,

Martin

Were³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Umbilical-cord infection (omphalitis) is a major cause of neonatal mortality in Kenya. Chlorhexidine 7.1% digluconate gel, (CHX), delivering 4% chlorhexidine was identified as a life-saving commodity for newborn cord care by the United Nations and is included on the World Health Organization and Kenyan Essential Medicines Lists. Methods: We employed a cost-consequence model to assess resource saving and breakeven price of implementing CHX for neonatal umbilical cord care versus dry cord care (DCC) in a Kenyan birth cohort. Firstly, the number of omphalitis cases and cases avoided by healthcare sector were estimated. Economic outcomes associated with omphalitis cases avoided were then determined, including direct, indirect and total cost of care associated with omphalitis, resource use (outpatient visits and bed days) and societal impact (caregiver workdays lost). Treatment effect inputs were calculated from a Cochrane meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (base case) and 2 other RCTs. Costs and other inputs were sourced from the literature and supplemented by expert clinical opinion/informed inputs, making assumptions as necessary. Reports: The model estimated that, over 1 year, ~23,000 omphalitis cases per 500,000 births could be avoided through CHX application versus DCC, circumventing ~13,000 outpatient visits, ~43,000 bed days and preserving ~114,000 workdays. CHX was associated with annual direct cost savings of ~590,000 US dollars (USD) versus DCC (not including drug-acquisition cost), increasing to ~2.5 million USD after including indirect costs (productivity, notional salary loss). The most-influential model parameter was relative risk of omphalitis with CHX versus DCC. Breakeven analysis identified a budget-neutral price for CHX use of 1.18 USD/course when accounting for direct cost savings only, and of 5.43 USD/course when also including indirect cost savings. The estimated breakeven price was robust to parameter input changes. DCC does not necessarily represent standard of care in Kenya; other, potentially harmful, approaches may be used, meaning cost savings may be understated. Conclusions: Estimated healthcare cost savings and potential health benefits provide compelling evidence to implement CHX for umbilical cord care in Kenya. We encourage comprehensive data collection to make future models and estimates of the impacts of upscaling CHX use more robust.

show abstract

“…25 An unintended perverse use of cost-benefit analyses has been the use of value thresholds by the industry to set drug prices up to the highest limit payers will be willing to pay to maximize profit, thus defeating their original purpose of maximizing health benefits for the population. [26][27][28][29] This tendency is reflected in some cost-utility studies that, rather than present cost per QALY based on a reasonable whole acquisition cost, present their results as the highest drug price at which a drug should be covered based on a value threshold that is treated as a given, subtly biasing debate on willingness to pay.…”

Section: Qaly Cost-effectiveness Thresholdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic considerations on the usage of biologics in the allergy clinic

Azzano

Dufresne

Poder

et al. 2020

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of biologic drugs and their expanding use over the last years have transformed the management of patients suffering from severe atopic diseases. Unfortunately, their very high cost also creates new challenges in terms of access and sustainability. This is a problem shared among all medical disciplines. In Europe, the 10 most prescribed biologics accounted for a combined cost of 16.5 billion Euros (14.8 billion USD). 1 In the USA in 2013, they were found to account for 40% of medication costs while representing only 2% of prescription. 2 To evaluate the value and justify coverage of new medications, industry and health technology agencies perform cost-utility analyses, which are the cornerstone of health economic assessment. 3-6 When used within their limits, they can be powerful tools to allow fair comparison of seemingly incomparable health states. Many clinicians feel they have insufficient training to properly interpret health economics studies. 7,8 This is paradoxical since clinicians are often in the best position to judge the credibility of baseline hypotheses, the appropriateness of treatment goals and the applicability to specific patient context and should in fact play a central role in the critical appraisal of such analyses. The objective of this review is to provide key notions to help allergists assess literature on health economics, review and compare available cost-utility studies on the use of biologic drugs in the field of allergy, and reflect on unmet needs and future directions in this area.

show abstract

Defining the concept of fair pricing for medicines

Abstract: Suerie Moon and colleagues consider what makes a fair price for both buyers and sellers

Cited by 42 publications

References 23 publications

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Cost and consequences of using 7.1% chlorhexidine gel for newborn umbilical cord care in Kenya

Economic considerations on the usage of biologics in the allergy clinic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About