Talkin' About a Resolution: Issues in the Push for Greater Transparency of Medicine Prices.

At the 2019 World Health Assembly, a significant new resolution was agreed by most countries to start publicly sharing information on the real net prices they pay for medicines in their health systems. The resolution also includes provisions for countries to support other transparency activities. However, an additional proposal to require pharmaceutical companies to submit information on their internal sales figures, internal research and development costs, clinical trial costs and marketing costs for each individual medicine as a condition of registration, and for governments to publish this, was not agreed. Pressure for coordinated international action to increase the transparency of medicine prices and costs has been building for some time, as confidential discounts and rebates on prices of medicines are common. We argue that while it is possible that stakeholders may benefit to some extent from greater transparency on prices, several important policy and economic issues need to be carefully considered. Such transparency, combined with widespread use of international reference pricing, might undermine companies' differential pricing strategies, which are important in fostering wider access to medicines in low- and middle-income countries in particular, noting that access to medicines issues can occur in high-income countries as well. Moreover, there is a further risk that these types of proposals will lead to price fixing, less competition and higher prices than might otherwise be the case. The lack of any commitments in the resolution to greater transparency in payer decision-making processes also risks undermining the credibility of the resolution. The resolution and further transparency measures could have the potential to undermine patient access to medicines in the developing world, lead to higher prices in some markets and compromise long-term development of new medicines for future generations.

Comparative Approaches to Drug Pricing.

The United States relies primarily on market forces to determine prices for drugs, whereas most other industrialized countries use a variety of approaches to determine drug prices. Branded drug companies have patents and market exclusivity periods in most industrialized countries. During this period, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to set their list price as high as they prefer in the United States owing to the absence of government price control mechanisms that exist in other countries. Insured patients often pay a percentage of the list price, and cost sharing creates some pressure to lower the list price. Pharmacy benefit managers negotiate with drug companies for lower prices by offering the drug company favorable formulary placement and fewer utilization controls. However, these approaches appear to be less effective, compared with other countries' approaches to containing branded drug prices, because prices are substantially higher in the United States. Other industrialized countries employ various forms of rate setting and price regulation, such as external reference pricing, therapeutic valuation, and health technology assessment to determine the appropriate price.

Reflections on the ISPOR Special Task Force on U.S. Value Frameworks: Implications of a Health Economics Approach for Managed Care Pharmacy.

In 2016, The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) formed a special task force (STF) to review approaches and methods to support the definition and use of high-quality U.S. value frameworks. As the leadership group of that initiative, we present our perspective, focusing on implications for the managed care pharmacy community. Our reflections are organized by 9 key observations and conclude with a summary recommendation. We begin by emphasizing the importance of distinguishing among "perspectives" and "decision contexts." Possible perspectives include patient, payer, provider, health care sector, and societal. Decision contexts range from formulary inclusion to guideline development to clinical shared decision making, and multiple perspectives can be taken on each of these decisions. The STF focused on value in the context of including a new medicine in a formulary and, thus, health plan, using a health economics approach that compares marginal benefit (gross value) and marginal (opportunity) cost, yielding the net value. Health care is unique compared with other markets. While economists often use market purchases as indicators of value, they also recognize that this does not work well in health care, since most patent-protected drugs are covered by insurance. To assess the likely health and economic impact, health economists often employ cost-effectiveness analysis, using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), a metric that combines mortality and morbidity into a single preference-based index. We strongly endorse the STF's recommendation that payers should use the cost-per-QALY metric as a starting point. However, like the STF, and many of those stakeholders who provided input, we recognize that this metric has some limitations in theory and in practice. Nonetheless, the cost-per-QALY metric is a pragmatic tool that can be augmented to address some of its limitations by integrating other elements of value, particularly those related to uncertainty, such as financial risk protection, health risk protection, the value of hope, real option value, and the value of knowing. The resulting adjusted ratio can be compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold or combined in a measure of net monetary benefit. Alternatively, the array of elements can be valued using multi-criteria decision analysis. We end with the key recommendation that further development and testing of these promising approaches is needed to improve the deliberative process of health technology assessment. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported the writing of this article. The authors are leaders of the ISPOR Special Task Force on U.S. Value Frameworks. Willke is employed by ISPOR. Garrison and Neumann have nothing to disclose. The opinions expressed in this article should be considered as belonging only to the authors.

The Promising Viral Threat to Bacterial Resistance: the Uncertain Patentability of Phage Therapeutics and the Necessity of Alternative Incentives.

Bacteriophages, or "phages," are a category of highly adept and adaptable viruses that can infect and kill bacteria. With concerns over the burgeoning antibiotic-resistance crisis looming in recent years, scientists and policymakers have expressed a growing interest in developing novel treatments for bacterial infections that utilize bacteriophages. Because of the great expense associated with bringing a new drug to market, patents are usually considered the gold standard for incentivizing research and development in the pharmaceutical field. Absent such strong protection for a developer's front end investment, pharmaceutical development remains financially risky and unattractive. Unfortunately, recent Supreme Court jurisprudence analyzing patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. subsection 101 has cast doubt on whether phage therapeutics would be eligible for strong patent protection. In order for the promise of phage therapeutics to become a reality, alternative protections or incentives are likely necessary. Such a framework would likely include trade secrecy, regulatory exclusivities, research support, alternative payment models, or some combination thereof.

State Remedies For Costly Prescription Drugs.

(1) At least 74.7 million Americans use three or more prescription drugs in a 30-day period. (2) Eighty percent of the U.S. public views prescription drug costs as "unreasonable," while 17 percent say "reasonable," according to a recent poll. (3) An influenza drug has a cash price of $100, but a patient with insurance may pay $125 because of a "gag clause" that restricts pharmacists from disclosing price options.

Do national drug policies influence antiretroviral drug prices? Evidence from the Southern African Development community.

Background: The efficacy of low- and middle-income countries' (LMIC) national drug policies in managing antiretroviral (ARV) pharmaceutical prices is not well understood. Though ARV drug prices have been declining in LMIC over the past decade, little research has been done on the role of their national drug policies. This study aims to (i) analyse global ARV prices from 2004 to 2013 and (ii) examine the relationship of national drug policies to ARV prices. Methods: Analysis of ARV drug prices utilized data from the Global Price Reporting Mechanism from the World Health Organization (WHO). Ten of the most common ARV drugs (first-line and second-line) were selected. National drug policies were also assessed for 12 countries in the South African Development Community (SADC), which self-reported their policies through WHO surveys. Results: The best predictor of ARV drug price was generic status­the generic versions of 8 out of 10 ARV drugs were priced lower than branded versions. However, other factors such as transaction volume, HIV prevalence, national drug policies and PEPFAR/CHAI involvement were either not associated with ARV drug price or were not consistent predictors of price across different ARV drugs. Conclusion: In the context of emerging international trade agreements, which aim to strengthen patent protections internationally and potentially delay the sale of generic drugs in LMIC, this study shines a spotlight on the importance of generic drugs in controlling ARV prices. Further research is needed to understand the impact of national drug policies on ARV prices.

The 21st Century Cures Act: pharmacoeconomic boon or bane?

Barriers to entry in healthcare markets constitute one of the overriding concerns of health economists. The recent enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act in the United States reduces statutory entry barriers to the discovery, development, testing, and licensing of drugs and medical devices. Drug and device makers also see the burdensome and time-consuming requirements of the Food and Drug Administration?s approval process as key barriers to lowering the costs of their products, considering it takes a decade of research amounting to $1 billion just to bring a single drug to the market. Along with novel opportunities for medical product innovation and faster treatment of diseases, the expedited approval process carries with it contentious challenges involving the safety, efficacy and value of drugs and devices. The ensuing trade-offs and unintended consequences of such a regulatory game-changer bring to the fore one of the most enduring debates between medicine and economics: Whether - or to what extent - cost and efficiency factors affect clinical inquiry into possible solutions to human illnesses. The practical and theoretical contributions of pharmacoeconomics should enlighten contemporary and future issues and discussions surrounding the implementation of this landmark legislation. After all, despite its undeniably good intent and far-reaching significance, no law can ever be perfect.

International Consensus on Allergen Immunotherapy II: Mechanisms, standardization, and pharmacoeconomics.

This article continues the comprehensive international consensus (ICON) statement on allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The initial article also recently appeared in the Journal. The conclusions below focus on key mechanisms of AIT-triggered tolerance, requirements in allergen standardization, AIT cost-effectiveness, and regulatory guidance. Potential barriers to and facilitators of the use of AIT are described in addition to future directions. International allergy specialists representing the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization critically reviewed the existing literature and prepared this summary of recommendations for best AIT practice. The authors contributed equally and reached consensus on the statements presented herein.

Proposal To Use VA Price As a Benchmark Is off the Mark.

While the politics of tapping into anger about high drug prices would seem to have made Proposition 61 an easy sell, the initiative actually had a lot going against it. The pharmaceutical industry didn't take it lightly, raising over $100 million to defeat it.

Regulatory and Economic Considerations of Retinal Drugs.

The advent of anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion and diabetes mellitus has prevented blindness in tens of thousands of people. However, the costs of these drugs are without precedent in ophthalmic drug therapeutics. An analysis of the financial implications of retinal drugs and the impact of the Food and Drug Administration on treatment of retinal disease must include not only an evaluation of the direct costs of the drugs and the costs associated with their administration, but also the cost savings which accrue from their clinical benefit. This chapter will discuss the financial and regulatory issues associated with retinal drugs.

Built for the road ahead.

Henry Ford Health System in Detroit is seeking new ways to lower and cover costs for the large, low-income population it serves in southeastern Michigan. Employing a strategy that couples the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program with a prescription assistance program of its own creation, Henry Ford has seen improvement in the following areas: Increased medication adherence. Reduced readmissions. Cost savings that are sufficient to expand services where expansion otherwise would not have been feasible.

The evolution of Taiwan's National Health Insurance drug reimbursement scheme.

BACKGROUND: The rapid growth of health care expenditures, especially pharmaceutical spending, is a challenge for many countries. To control increasing pharmaceutical expenditures and to enhance rational use of drugs, Taiwan's National Health Insurance drug reimbursement system has evolved over time since its introduction in 1995. This study reviewed Taiwan's drug reimbursement scheme: its development and evolution in the last two decades, and implications and impacts of recent policies for drug pricing. We also provide recommendations for possible improvement. METHODS: We conducted a review of Taiwan's National Health Insurance drug reimbursement scheme. We focused on three major components of the scheme: (i) the scope of drug coverage; (ii) pricing system for pharmaceuticals under the scheme; and (iii) adjustment of drug reimbursement prices. We reviewed the literature and public policy documents. RESULTS: The National Health Insurance delisted 176 and another 240 behind-the-counter products (e.g., antacids, vitamins) between 2005 and 2006 to reduce pharmaceutical expenditures. For the pricing of pharmaceuticals, policy evolution can be divided into four phases since 1995; the present system emphasizes stakeholder engagement, health technology assessment, domestic R&D, and improving quality of products. To close the gap between drug reimbursement prices and procurement prices, eight rounds of drug price surveys and adjustments have been implemented since 2000. CONCLUSIONS: Taiwan's National Health Insurance drug reimbursement scheme has evolved substantially over time to provide more equitable and affordable access to prescription medicines. However, more work is still needed as irrational difference in reimbursement and procurement prices persists and the total expenditure of the drug reimbursement scheme continues to increase at unsustainable rates.

Parallel imports and a mandatory substitution reform: a kick or a muff for price competition in pharmaceuticals?

What has been the effect of competition from parallel imports on prices of locally sourced on-patent drugs? Did the 2002 Swedish mandatory substitution reform increase this competition? To answer these questions, we carried out difference-in-differences estimation on monthly data for a panel of all locally sourced on-patent prescription drugs sold in Sweden during the 40 months from January 2001 to April 2004. On average, facing competition from parallel imports caused a 15-17% fall in price. While the reform increased the effect of competition from parallel imports, it was only by 0.9%. The reform, however, did increase the effect of therapeutic competition by 1.6%.