Differential Pricing for Pharmaceuticals: Reconciling Access, R&D and Patents

This paper reviews the economic case for patents and the potential for differential pricing to increase affordability of on-patent drugs in developing countries while preserving incentives for innovation. Differential pricing, based on Ramsey pricing principles, is the second best efficient way of paying for the global joint costs of pharmaceutical R&D. Assuming demand elasticities are related to income, it would also be consistent with standard norms of equity. To achieve appropriate and sustainable price differences will require either that higher-income countries forego trying to "import" low drug prices from low-income countries, through parallel trade and external referencing, or that such practices become less feasible. The most promising approach that would prevent both parallel trade and external referencing is for payers/purchasers on behalf of developing countries to negotiate contracts with companies that include confidential rebates. With confidential rebates, final transactions prices to purchasers can differ across markets while manufacturers sell to distributors at uniform prices, thus eliminating opportunities for parallel trade and external referencing. The option of compulsory licensing of patented products to generic manufacturers may be important if they truly have lower production costs or originators charge prices above marginal cost, despite market separation. However, given the risks inherent in compulsory licensing, it seems best to first try the approach of strengthening market separation, to enable originator firms to maintain differential pricing. With assured market separation, originators may offer prices comparable to the prices that a local generic firm would charge, which eliminates the need for compulsory licensing. Differential pricing could go a long way to improve LDC access to drugs that have a high income market. However, other subsidy mechanisms will be needed to promote R&D for drugs that have no high income market.

Value-Based Differential Pricing: Efficient Prices for Drugs in a Global Context

This paper analyzes pharmaceutical pricing between and within countries to achieve second-best static and dynamic efficiency. We distinguish countries with and without universal insurance, because insurance undermines patients\u27 price sensitivity, potentially leading to prices above second-best efficient levels. In countries with universal insurance, if each payer unilaterally sets an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold based on its citizens\u27 willingness-to-pay for health; manufacturers price to that ICER threshold; and payers limit reimbursement to patients for whom a drug is cost-effective at that price and ICER, then the resulting price levels and use within each country and price differentials across countries are roughly consistent with second-best static and dynamic efficiency. These value-based prices are expected to differ cross-nationally with per capita income and be broadly consistent with Ramsey optimal prices. Countries without comprehensive insurance avoid its distorting effects on prices but also lack financial protection and affordability for the poor. Improving pricing efficiency in these self-pay countries includes improving regulation and consumer information about product quality and enabling firms to price discriminate within and between countries

Pharmaceutical Pricing in Emerging Markets: Effects of Income, Competition, and Procurement

This paper analyzes determinants of ex-manufacturer prices for originator and generic drugs across a large sample of countries. We focus on drugs to treat HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in middle and low income countries (MLICs), with robustness checks to other therapeutic categories and other countries. We examine effects of per capita income, income dispersion, number and type of therapeutic and generic competitors, and whether the drugs are sold to retail pharmacies vs. tendered procurement by NGOs. The cross-national income elasticity of prices is 0.4 across high and low income countries, but is only 0.15 between MLICs, implying that drugs are least affordable relative to income in the lowest income countries. Within-country income inequality contributes to relatively high prices in MLICs. Number of therapeutic and generic competitors only weakly affects prices to retail pharmacies, plausibly because uncertain quality leads to competition on brand rather than price. Tendered procurement attracts multinational generic suppliers and significantly reduces prices for originators and generics, compared to prices to retail pharmacies

Establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug

Background This paper addresses the question of what a reasonable price for an orphan drug is. The research proposes a way to adjust an established payer/HTA body incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) to take account of differences in patient populations and costs of research and development in order to sustain prices that generate rates of return from investments in developing orphan drugs that are no greater than the industry average. Methods We investigated the cost of conducting research for orphan drugs as compared to non-orphan drugs, as well as patient population sizes targeted by orphans and non-orphans. We provided an empirical illustration based on novel drug approvals of orphan and non-orphan drugs of the FDA between 2011 and 2015 (N = 182). Results Using, for illustration, the NICE incremental CET (£20 K per QALY) as an anchor and adjusting by R&D costs and expected market revenue, we estimated the adjusted reasonable CET for orphan drugs to be £39.1 K per QALY at the orphan population cut-off and £78.3 K per QALY at the orphan population mid-point. For ultra-orphan drugs the adjusted CET was £937.1 K. Conclusions We propose one general method for establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug, based on the proposition that rates of return for investments in developing orphan drugs should not be greater than the industry average. More research is required on data and assumptions, but with the data and assumptions we use, we find that in order to secure such a reasonable price for an orphan drug, the CET for orphans would need to be higher. This could be one approach for establishing the maximum allowable price society should be willing to pay, although decision-makers may still wish to negotiate a lower price, or refuse to pay such a premium over the value-based price in order to treat these groups of patients

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Comments on the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework

As members of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, we read with great interest the new American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options.1 We applaud the Value in Cancer Care Task Force for proposing a conceptual framework to support clinicians and patients in assessing the value of new cancer treatments. We acknowledge the challenges facing clinician–patient decision making, particularly concerning cancer treatments. Like ASCO, we recognize that the cost of treatments is increasingly being placed on patients through cost sharing and that engaging patients as part of making individual treatment decisions is of high importance. The ASCO framework highlights the growing tension among patients, insurance companies, and product manufacturers in a dynamic health care environment. In that light, the framework deserves a field test, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of that experience. We also appreciate the opportunity to offer comments and suggestions on the ASCO framework at this early stage, and our membership stands ready to support ASCO in future enhancements

Relative Effectiveness in Breast Cancer Treatment : A Health Production Approach

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals' relative effectiveness has come to the fore in the policy arena, reflecting the need to understand how relative efficacy (what can work) translates into added benefit in routine clinical use (what does work). European payers and licensing authorities assess value for money and post-launch benefit-risk profiles, and efforts to standardize assessments of relative effectiveness across the European Union (EU) are under way. However, the ways that relative effectiveness differs across EU healthcare settings are poorly understood. METHODS: To understand which factors influence differences in relative effectiveness, we developed an analytical framework that treats the healthcare system as a health production function. Using evidence on breast cancer from England, Spain, and Sweden as a case study, we investigated the reasons why the relative effectiveness of a new drug might vary across healthcare systems. Evidence was identified from a literature review and national clinical guidance. RESULTS: The review included thirteen international studies and thirty country-specific studies. Cross-country differences in population age structure, deprivation, and educational attainment were consistently associated with variation in outcomes. Screening intensity appeared to drive differences in survival, although the impact on mortality was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The way efficacy translates into relative effectiveness across health systems is likely to be influenced by a range of complex and interrelated factors. These factors could inform government and payer policy decisions on ways to optimize relative effectiveness, and help increase understanding of the potential transferability of data on relative effectiveness from one health system to another

Understanding Variations in Relative Effectiveness : A Health Production Approach

BACKGROUND: Relative effectiveness has become a key concern of health policy. In Europe, this is because of the need for early information to guide reimbursement and funding decisions about new medical technologies. However, ways that effectiveness (does it work?) and efficacy (can it work?) might differ across health systems are poorly understood. METHODS: This study proposes an analytical framework, drawing on production function theory, to systematically identify and quantify the determinants of relative effectiveness and sources of variation between populations and healthcare systems. We consider how methods such as stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis using a Malmquist productivity index could in principle be used to generate evidence on, and improve understanding about, the sources of variation in relative effectiveness between countries and over time. RESULTS: Better evidence on factors driving relative effectiveness could: inform decisions on how to best use a new technology to maximum effectiveness; establish the need if any for follow-up post-launch studies, and provide evidence of the impact of new health technologies on outcomes in different healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: The health production function approach for assessment of relative effectiveness is complementary to traditional experimental and observational studies, focusing on identifying, collecting, and analyzing data at the national level, enabling comparisons to take place. There is a strong case for exploring the use of this approach to better understand the impact of new medicines and devices for improvements in health outcomes

Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy.

There is growing interest in cost-effectiveness thresholds as a tool to inform resource allocation decisions in health care. Studies from several countries have sought to estimate health system opportunity costs, which supply-side cost-effectiveness thresholds are intended to represent. In this paper, we consider the role of empirical estimates of supply-side thresholds in policy-making. Recent studies estimate the cost per unit of health based on average displacement or outcome elasticity. We distinguish the types of point estimates reported in empirical work, including marginal productivity, average displacement, and outcome elasticity. Using this classification, we summarise the limitations of current approaches to threshold estimation in terms of theory, methods, and data. We highlight the questions that arise from alternative interpretations of thresholds and provide recommendations to policymakers seeking to use a supply-side threshold where the evidence base is emerging or incomplete. We recommend that: (1) policymakers must clearly define the scope of the application of a threshold, and the theoretical basis for empirical estimates should be consistent with that scope; (2) a process for the assessment of new evidence and for determining changes in the threshold to be applied in policy-making should be created; (3) decision-making processes should retain flexibility in the application of a threshold; and (4) policymakers should provide support for decision-makers relating to the use of thresholds and the implementation of decisions stemming from their application