Injectable antibiotic use in India: public-private share in volume and cost.

Background: Consumption of injectable antibiotics is not widely studied, despite injectables constitute a major share of antibiotic cost. This study aimed to understand the share of oral and injectable antibiotic consumption and cost at the national level in India, and the public and private sector shares in the provision and cost of injectables in Kerala state. Methods: We used the PharmaTrac private sector sales dataset and the Kerala Medical Services Corporation public sector procurement dataset. Using WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classifications, we estimated the annual total and per-capita consumption, and the annual total, per defined daily dose (DDD), and per-capita spending on injectables. Results: Although 94.9% of total antibiotics consumed at the national level were oral preparations, 35.8% of total spending were on injectables. In Kerala , around 33% of total antibiotic spending in the private sector were for injectables, compared to around 25% in the public sector. The public sector used fewer injectable antibiotic formulations (n=21) compared the private sector (n=69). The cost per DDD was significantly higher in the private sector as compared to the public sector. Despite only accounting for 6.3% of the cost share, the public sector provided 31.4% of injectables, indicating very high efficiency. Across both sectors, Watch group antibiotics were significantly more consumed and at a significantly higher cost than Access group antibiotics, for example in nearly double the quantity and at 1.75 times the price per DDD in the private sector. Reserve group antibiotics made up the lowest consumption share (0.61% in the private sector), but at the highest cost per DDD (over 16 times that of Access). Conclusions: Public sector showed higher cost efficiency in antibiotic provisioning compared to private sector. Appropriate antibiotic use cannot be achieved through drug price control alone but requires extensive engagement with private providers through structured stewardship programs.

This study tried to understand the share of public and private sectors in the volume and cost of antibiotic injections in India, particularly in the state of Kerala. We used drug sales data (PharmaTrac) and Kerala government procurement data for the analysis. The study was conducted by researchers at Boston University (USA), Public Health Foundation of India (India), Center for Global Development (UK and USA), and INSEAD (France), and was supported by a Wellcome grant. We analysed data using the World Health Organization classification of antibiotics into Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe), which is based on the risk of emergence of resistance. We estimated the annual total and per-capita consumption, and the annual total, per-dose, and per-capita spending on injectables. We found that although antibiotic injections were less than six percent of total antibiotics consumed nationally, they accounted for more than 35% of total spending. Kerala data showed that the public sector showed higher efficiency by providing one-third of antibiotic injection doses using fewer formulations, with only six percent of the cost share. Reserve group antibiotics, which made up the lowest consumption share, had the highest cost per dose (over 16 times that of Access antibiotics). In conclusion, public sector showed higher cost efficiency in injectable antibiotic provisioning compared with private sector. Appropriate antibiotic use requires extensive engagement with private providers through structured stewardship programs.

[High-cost medicines: the difficult balance between individual and collective rightsMedicamentos de alto custo: o difícil equilíbrio entre direitos individuais e coletivos]. / Medicamentos de alto costo: el difícil equilibrio entre los derechos individuales y los derechos colectivos.

Medicines are special goods that cover the health needs of the population. In recent decades, the pharmaceutical industry has changed its research and development strategy, shifting its focus from the exploration of medicines for chronic diseases affecting a large part of the population to the search for drugs for rare diseases that affect a small number of people.This lack of a mass consumer base is reflected in a selective offer of a few very high-cost products aimed at certain diseases, which hinders both patient access and financial coverage.This article reviews the issue of high-cost medicines, including its cultural, legal, political, economic, and health aspects. It emphasizes the differences between various medicines in terms of their efficacy in changing the natural course of diseases, their market price, the consequences of their cost for healthcare funders, and the cost-opportunity ratio of having to pay for them at the expense of other essential resources.Finally, the article reflects on the legitimate rights of each individual to claim access to high-cost medicines when they are considered essential to recover a person's health, and on how guaranteeing such coverage can affect the collective rights of the population. Concrete examples that illustrate this situation are provided.

Medicamentos são bens especiais que atendem às necessidades de saúde da população. Nas últimas décadas, a indústria farmacêutica mudou sua estratégia de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, deixando de explorar medicamentos para doenças crônicas que afetam grande parte da população e passando a buscar medicamentos para poucas pessoas com doenças raras.Esse número limitado de consumidores se reflete em uma oferta seletiva de poucos produtos de preço elevado para determinadas doenças, dificultando o acesso dos pacientes e a obtenção de cobertura dos agentes financiadores da saúde.Neste artigo, analisa-se a questão dos medicamentos de alto custo e incorpora-se ao debate o contexto sanitário, cultural, jurídico, político e econômico. São enfatizados os seguintes aspectos: diferenças entre os diferentes medicamentos em termos da eficácia em mudar o curso natural das doenças para as quais são indicados; determinação do preço pelo qual esses medicamentos são vendidos no mercado; consequências desse preço para os agentes financiadores da saúde; e a relação custo-oportunidade de ter de pagar por esses medicamentos em detrimento de outros recursos considerados essenciais.Por fim, reflete-se sobre os direitos legítimos de cada indivíduo de reivindicar acesso a medicamentos de alto custo, por considerá-los essenciais para recuperar a própria saúde, e como a garantia dessa cobertura pode afetar os direitos coletivos da população; também são fornecidos exemplos concretos que ilustram essa situação.

Impact of medicine shortages on hospital practice: role of a multidisciplinary medicine shortages team.

Medicine shortages are an increasing issue, with broad public health implications for patients, health professionals and institutions. Despite national notification mechanisms involving sponsors and national regulators (e.g. Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration), shortages continue to be a significant workload in hospitals, particularly for pharmacy staff. In this article, we describe the implications of medicine shortages and a team approach to their management in an Australian public hospital. The medicine shortages team comprises senior pharmacists, a pharmacy technician, and a purchasing officer, in consultation with medical staff. A 10 week audit recorded 34 medicine shortages and/or discontinuations, comprising 49 usually stocked products. Shortages were more quickly identified by the purchasing officer using established relationships with suppliers, rather than relying on sponsor or government communication. Having a team systematically dealing with these shortages enables expertise in supply chains, finances, therapeutics, and medicine safety to be shared, to identify optimal interventions to mitigate patient risk.

Trends in the availability and prices of quality-assured tuberculosis drugs: a systematic analysis of Global Drug Facility Product Catalogs from 2001 to 2024.

BACKGROUND: The Global Drug Facility (GDF) of the Stop TB Partnership was launched in 2001 with the goal of increasing access to quality-assured tuberculosis (TB) drugs and products. We aimed to describe the TB drugs and prices available from the GDF over time and to assess trends. METHODS: We searched the internet, including an internet archive, for past and recent GDF Product Catalogs and extracted the listed TB drugs and prices. We calculated the lowest price for the most common drug formulations assuming drugs with similar active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) are substitutes for each other. We assessed time trends in the TB drugs and prices offered by the GDF in univariable regressions over the longest possible period. RESULTS: We identified 43 different GDF Product Catalogs published between November 2001 and May 2024. These product catalogs included 122 single medicines (31 APIs), 28 fixed-dose combinations (9 API combinations), and 8 patient kits (8 API regimens and other materials). The number of TB drugs listed in the GDF Product Catalog increased from 9 (8 APIs) to 55 (32 APIs). The price decreased for 17, increased for 19, and showed no trend for 12 APIs. The price of 15 (53.6%) of 28 APIs used against drug-resistant TB decreased, including the price of drugs used in new treatment regimens. The decreasing price trend was strongest for linezolid (-16.60 [95% CI: -26.35 to -6.85] percentage points [pp] per year), bedaquiline (-12.61 [95% CI: -18.00 to -7.22] pp per year), cycloserine (-11.20 [95% CI: -17.40 to -4.99] pp per year), pretomanid (-10.47 [95% CI: -15.06 to -5.89] pp per year), and rifapentine (-10.46 [95% CI: -12.86 to -8.06] pp per year). The prices of 16 (61.5%) of 23 APIs for standard drug-susceptible TB treatment increased, including rifampicin (23.70 [95% CI: 18.48 to 28.92] pp per year), isoniazid (20.95 [95% CI: 18.96 to 22.95] pp per year), ethambutol (9.85 [95% CI: 8.83 to 10.88] pp per year), and fixed-dose combinations thereof. CONCLUSIONS: The number of TB drugs available from the GDF has substantially increased during its first 23 years of operation. The prices of most APIs for new TB treatments decreased or remained stable. The prices of most APIs for standard drug-sensitive TB treatment increased.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options. METHODS: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

Estimating Tiotropium Wasted Doses After Adding Revefenacin to an Inpatient Formulary: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction: Revefenacin is a once-daily nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Revefenacin is supplied as single-use nebulized vials, which may be preferable and less costly for hospital and health-system pharmacies to dispense versus multidose tiotropium inhalers. Estimates of LAMA multidose inhaler wasted doses remains unknown. Methods: This was a single-center descriptive cross-sectional study conducted between January 1 2021 and December 31 2021. Adult patients 18 years and older admitted to a 500-bed academic medical center in the southern United States and were ordered multidose tiotropium packages or single-use revefenacin vials during the study period were included. Results: Among 602 inpatients, there were 705 LAMA orders: 541 tiotropium (76.7%) and 164 revefenacin (23.3%). Four hundred ninety-five tiotropium orders (91.5%) wasted between 20% and 90% of multidose packages. Approximately $24,000 tiotropium doses were wasted versus single-use revefenacin vials. Conclusion: Multidose inhalers of tiotropium dispensed to hospitalized patients contributed to wasted doses compared to nebulized single-use revefenacin vials. Opportunities exist to minimize wasted doses of multidose long-acting inhalers dispensed to hospitalized patients.

Impact of government-issued financial incentive to medical facilities on management of secondary dysmenorrhea.

AIM: In April 2020, the Japanese government introduced a Specific Medical Fee for managing secondary dysmenorrhea (SD). This initiative provided financial incentives to medical facilities that provide appropriate management of SD with hormonal therapies. We aimed to assess how this policy affects the management processes and outcomes of patients with SD. METHODS: Using a large Japanese administrative claims database, we identified outpatient visits of patients diagnosed with SD from April 2018 to March 2022. We used an interrupted time-series analysis and defined before April 2020 as the pre-introduction period and after April 2020 as the post-introduction period. Outcomes were the monthly proportions of outpatient visits due to SD and hormonal therapy among women in the database and the proportions of outpatient visits for hormonal therapy and continuous outpatient visits among patients with SD. RESULTS: We identified 815 477 outpatient visits of patients diagnosed with SD during the pre-introduction period and 920 183 outpatient visits during the post-introduction period. There were significant upward slope changes after the introduction of financial incentives in the outpatient visits due to SD (+0.29% yearly; 95% confidence interval, +0.20% to +0.38%) and hormonal therapies (+0.038% yearly; 95% confidence interval, +0.030% to +0.045%) among the women in the database. Similarly, a significant level change was observed after the introduction of continuous outpatient visits among patients with SD (+2.68% monthly; 95% confidence interval, +0.87% to +4.49%). CONCLUSIONS: Government-issued financial incentives were associated with an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with SD, hormonal therapies, and continuous outpatient visits.

Assessing provider knowledge of the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program in a federally qualified health center.

PURPOSE: The 340B Drug Pricing Program is important to healthcare organizations that serve vulnerable communities. However, it is unknown whether healthcare providers in these organizations understand the 340B program and how it supports enhanced patient services. This study aims to characterize the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of healthcare providers toward the 340B program in a multisite federally qualified health center (FQHC). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. A 27-item survey designed to assess prescriber knowledge and perspectives toward the 340B program was developed and administered. Closed-ended items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-ended items were analyzed with qualitative methods. RESULTS: A total of 198 healthcare providers with prescribing authority received the survey; of those, 65 (32.8%) participated. The majority of respondents (66.2%) were female; 41.5% were 35 years of age or younger, and 49.2% were physicians. The majority of respondents agreed that patients benefited from access to the organization's 340B pharmacies (95.0%) and that 340B pricing is important to consider when prescribing medications (78.3%). However, knowledge of the 340B program was limited, with only half of respondents (54.0%) able to correctly answer at least 4 of 7 knowledge-focused items. Reponses to a patient case suggested that some providers may be unfamiliar with which drugs are available at reduced prices. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that providers believe the 340B program benefits patients and the organization but often lack a complete understanding of the program. Future research should focus on prescriber education as a strategy to help organizations optimize their 340B programs and facilitate patient access to medications.

Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Newer Treatment Options for Diabetes: A Study Among Patients at a Tertiary Care Centre.

Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poses a substantial burden globally and particularly in India, affecting health, finances, and overall quality of life. The management of this condition relies on lifestyle modifications and advanced pharmacological interventions, with emerging drugs showing promise in areas such as administration, side effects, efficacy, and cardiovascular benefits. However, their market penetration is hindered by high costs. Understanding the target population's expectations and willingness to pay (WTP) for these drugs is crucial. WTP, a key concept in behavioral science, reflects the maximum price consumers are willing to pay for a product, aiding in healthcare cost-effectiveness evaluations. Despite its relevance, only one WTP study has been conducted in the Indian context for diabetes. This study explores WTP for two novel drugs: oral semaglutide and icodec (weekly insulin). Material and methods This observational study, conducted in a diabetes specialty clinic and telemedicine facility in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India, involved adults (18-80 years) diagnosed with T2DM. Data collection adhered to ethical guidelines, and participants provided written informed consent. Face-to-face interviews were employed to gather socio-economic, demographic, and medical details. Participants estimated their WTP for oral semaglutide and weekly insulin, considering reference ranges for existing antidiabetic treatments. Statistical analyses, including t-tests and analysis of variance, explored sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing WTP. Results Of 105 approached patients, 87 (74.3%) participated. The majority were males (55.2%) with an average age of 57.2 years. The average WTP for oral semaglutide was INR 9.35±5.66 per pill, significantly lower than its market price (INR 315). For weekly insulin (icodec), the WTP was INR 157.25±112.60 per dose. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant correlations based on sociodemographic or clinical parameters. Conclusion This study demonstrated the feasibility of WTP assessments in an Indian outpatient setting, revealing a substantial cost disparity between patients' WTP for oral semaglutide and its market price. The findings underscore the importance of considering WTP in introducing new diabetes medications in India, offering valuable insights for healthcare decision-makers and developers.

Evaluation of Potential Urologic Prescription Drug Savings With Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company.

INTRODUCTION: Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) launched in 2022 with a goal to decrease prescription drug costs. Thus far, research has focused on possible savings if Medicare purchased its annual volume of drugs at MCCPDC prices. The aim of this study is to analyze if MCCPDC can offer savings directly to urologic patients compared with other mail-order pharmacies, local pharmacies, and with patients using health insurance. METHODS: Twelve drugs used to treat urological diseases available on MCCPDC were analyzed. Pricing data of 30-tab and 90-tab prescriptions from MCCPDC, other mail-order pharmacies, and local in-person pharmacies near our zip code 40508 (Lexington, Kentucky) were compiled. To compare if MCCPDC could offer savings to patients using health insurance to fill their prescriptions, out-of-pocket drug costs for patients from the 2020 and 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the 2021 Medicare Part D spending data were extracted. RESULTS: Greater savings at MCCPDC were found at 90-tab prescriptions, but overall variability in prices existed. When comparing without health insurance, 9 of 12 drugs at MCCPDC were cheaper at 90 tabs with solifenacin and tadalafil saving $20 and $12 per prescription. When considering patients using insurance, abiraterone, sildenafil, and tadalafil offered savings on out-of-pocket costs at 30- and 90-tab prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: MCCPDC may offer cheaper prices for patients filling urologic medications, especially at 90-tab prescriptions. This study is the first to show patients could save money using MCCPDC and has implications for physician counseling when prescribing common urologic drugs.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers in the Eye of the Storm: Growing Multipartite Scrutiny.

The high cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. remains an ongoing national challenge. A recurring focal point in discussions over this distressing steady state is the role(s) played by Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) who negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers, conduct drug utilization reviews, engage in disease management, and see to formulary creation. At their inception, the multiple newly established PBMs were arguably intent on constraining the rise of prescription drug prices. At the time of this writing, however, the lion share of a far less competitive PBM market is controlled by CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx. It is this evolving reality which could be interpreted to mean that the PBMs may have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Expanded scrutiny of the PBMs by Federal and State authorities as well as by Professional Medical Associations must not be delayed with an eye toward affording the public with relief from the high cost of prescription drugs.

Variabilidade de preços de aquisição de medicamentos do grupo 1B do Componente Especializado da Assistência Farmacêutica / Variability in Drug Procurement within Group 1B of the Pharmaceutical Specialized Scheme in Brazil

Resumo No Sistema Único de Saúde os medicamentos do grupo 1 do Componente Especializado da Assistência Farmacêutica (CEAF) são financiados pela União e adquiridos de forma centralizada (grupo 1A) ou por cada Unidade Federativa (UF) (grupo 1B). Diferentemente de outros países onde se negocia um preço fixo a ser praticado no sistema público, no Brasil as aquisições são realizadas por licitação, o que pode levar a diferentes preços. Para permitir a comparação de preços, foi pactuada a obrigatoriedade de registro das aquisições públicas no Banco de Preços em Saúde (BPS). O estudo teve como objetivo analisar a variabilidade dos preços de medicamentos do grupo 1B adquiridos pelas UF do Brasil em 2021. Foram obtidas as aquisições de medicamentos do grupo 1B realizadas pelas Secretarias de Estado das 27 UF por consulta ao BPS excluindo-se os medicamentos sem preço de ressarcimento estabelecido em dezembro/2021. Foi obtido do Sistema de Informações Ambulatoriais o ressarcimento para cada UF. Verificou-se grande variabilidade dos preços de aquisição para cada medicamento entre as UF e dentro da mesma UF. O estudo demonstrou potencial iniquidade de acesso ao CEAF, privilegiando com menores preços UF mais favorecidas (maior população e riqueza).

Abstract In the Brazilian Health System (SUS), drugs covered by the Specialized Pharmaceutical Scheme (CEAF) receive federal funding and can be procured either centrally (Group 1A) or by individual states (Federal Units - UF) (Group 1B). Unlike other countries where national procurement prices are negotiated centrally by the government, public procurement in Brazil follows a public auction procedure, potentially resulting in varying purchase prices. To facilitate price comparisons, it is a legal requirement to register public acquisitions in the Health Prices Registry (BPS). This study aimed to assess the variability in the procurement prices for Group 1B drugs across the 27 Brazilian states during 2021. Data on the acquisitions of Group 1B drugs by the 27 Health Secretariats were obtained from the BPS. Drugs with no reported reimbursement prices as of December 2021 were excluded from the analysis. The total reimbursement amount for each state was sourced from the SUS Ambulatory Information System. The findings revealed significant variability in drug procurement prices both across and within states. The study underscored a potential disparity in CEAF access, favoring wealthier states (those with larger populations and higher economic status) by securing lower drug prices.

Medicamentos de alto costo: el difícil equilibrio entre los derechos individuales y los derechos colectivos / High-cost medicines: the difficult balance between individual and collective rights / Medicamentos de alto custo: o difícil equilíbrio entre direitos individuais e coletivos

RESUMEN Los medicamentos son bienes especiales que cubren necesidades de salud de la población. En las últimas décadas, la industria farmacéutica modificó su estrategia de investigación y desarrollo, y migró su interés desde la exploración de fármacos destinados a enfermedades crónicas padecidas por gran parte de la población hacia la búsqueda de medicamentos para pocas personas que tienen enfermedades raras. Esta falta de masividad en los consumidores se traduce en una oferta selectiva de pocos productos dirigidos a ciertas patologías que tienen un precio muy elevado, lo cual hace difícil tanto el acceso de los pacientes como el brindar cobertura desde los financiadores de la salud. En este artículo se recorre la temática de los medicamentos de alto precio y se incorpora al debate el contexto sanitario, cultural, jurídico, político y económico que la rodea. Se hace hincapié en las diferencias existentes entre los distintos fármacos en términos de eficacia para cambiar el curso natural de las enfermedades para los cuales son indicados, en la construcción del precio al cual estos medicamentos se venden en el mercado, en las consecuencias que tiene ese precio para los financiadores de la salud, y en la relación costo-oportunidad de tener que pagar por ellos en desmedro de otros recursos considerados esenciales. Por último, se reflexiona sobre los derechos legítimos de cada individuo a reclamar el acceso a medicamentos de alto precio por considerarlos fundamentales para recuperar su salud, y de cómo garantizar esa cobertura puede afectar los derechos colectivos de la población, y se aportan ejemplos concretos que ilustran esta situación.

ABSTRACT Medicines are special goods that cover the health needs of the population. In recent decades, the pharmaceutical industry has changed its research and development strategy, shifting its focus from the exploration of medicines for chronic diseases affecting a large part of the population to the search for drugs for rare diseases that affect a small number of people. This lack of a mass consumer base is reflected in a selective offer of a few very high-cost products aimed at certain diseases, which hinders both patient access and financial coverage. This article reviews the issue of high-cost medicines, including its cultural, legal, political, economic, and health aspects. It emphasizes the differences between various medicines in terms of their efficacy in changing the natural course of diseases, their market price, the consequences of their cost for healthcare funders, and the cost-opportunity ratio of having to pay for them at the expense of other essential resources. Finally, the article reflects on the legitimate rights of each individual to claim access to high-cost medicines when they are considered essential to recover a person's health, and on how guaranteeing such coverage can affect the collective rights of the population. Concrete examples that illustrate this situation are provided.

RESUMO Medicamentos são bens especiais que atendem às necessidades de saúde da população. Nas últimas décadas, a indústria farmacêutica mudou sua estratégia de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, deixando de explorar medicamentos para doenças crônicas que afetam grande parte da população e passando a buscar medicamentos para poucas pessoas com doenças raras. Esse número limitado de consumidores se reflete em uma oferta seletiva de poucos produtos de preço elevado para determinadas doenças, dificultando o acesso dos pacientes e a obtenção de cobertura dos agentes financiadores da saúde. Neste artigo, analisa-se a questão dos medicamentos de alto custo e incorpora-se ao debate o contexto sanitário, cultural, jurídico, político e econômico. São enfatizados os seguintes aspectos: diferenças entre os diferentes medicamentos em termos da eficácia em mudar o curso natural das doenças para as quais são indicados; determinação do preço pelo qual esses medicamentos são vendidos no mercado; consequências desse preço para os agentes financiadores da saúde; e a relação custo-oportunidade de ter de pagar por esses medicamentos em detrimento de outros recursos considerados essenciais. Por fim, reflete-se sobre os direitos legítimos de cada indivíduo de reivindicar acesso a medicamentos de alto custo, por considerá-los essenciais para recuperar a própria saúde, e como a garantia dessa cobertura pode afetar os direitos coletivos da população; também são fornecidos exemplos concretos que ilustram essa situação.

Costs of orphan medicinal products: longitudinal analysis of expenditure in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The Orphan Regulation ((EC) No 141/2000) has successfully redirected private and public investment towards previously neglected areas through incentives, regulatory obligations and rewards. However, the growth in the number of licensed orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has led to concerns about increased costs. The aims were to investigate the trend in the costs of OMPs to the National Health Service in Wales, to attribute costs of medicines within and outside periods of marketing exclusivity, and estimate the contribution of individual medicines to the overall costs of OMPs. METHODS: Expenditure on OMPs in Wales was analysed between the 2014/15 and 2019/20 financial years using data on prescriptions dispensed in primary care, secondary care, and specialised commissioned services. OMP spend was calculated as a proportion of total medicines expenditure, whether it was incurred during, or outside the marketing exclusivity period (MEP), and by therapeutic area and medicine. RESULTS: Overall spend on OMPs and all medicines increased from £32 m to £82 m, and from £1,030 m to £1,198 m, respectively, with the proportion of spend on OMPs more than doubling from 3.1% to 6.9% per annum. Average year-on-year growth in the costs of OMPs was 21%, compared to 2% for other medicines. Costs following MEP expiry contributed significantly to overall OMP costs, increasing from £8 m to £30 m, corresponding to an increase from 24% to 37%. Treatments for 'malignant disease and immunosuppression', 'nutrition and blood' and the 'respiratory system' accounted for 90% of all OMP spend. Half of total OMP annual expenditure was on just 4 medicines in 2014/15, increasing to 8 in 2019/20. CONCLUSIONS: Both the number of OMPs and the amount spent on OMPs in Wales has increased over time, possibly as a consequence of favourable licensing conditions, permissive health technology assessment policies and dedicated funding.

Physicians' assessment of the Bavarian drug-expenditure control system: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 a new system for drug expenditures, the Wirkstoffvereinbarung (WSV, English: Active substance agreement) was implemented in Bavaria. In pre-defined indication groups, economic prescription of medications shall be enabled based on the selection, quantity, and proportion of an individual drug. Ambulatory care physicians receive quarterly trend reports on their prescribing behavior. This study examines physicians' perceptions of the WSV. METHODS: Qualitative interviews (n = 20) and seven focus groups (n = 36) were conducted with ambulatory care physicians (e.g. general practitioners, cardiologists, pulmonologists). The methodology followed Qualitative Content Analysis. RESULTS: Physicians generally accepted the necessity of prescribing economically. The majority of them rated the WSV positively and better than the previous system. As an improvement, they especially named timely feedback in form of easily understandable trend reports, encouraging self-reflection as well as allowing early control options. Problems perceived were drug discount contracts that were strongly criticized as leading to patients mixing up medications. Some perceived constraints of therapeutic freedom. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the WSV is mostly viewed positively by physicians. The restrictions of therapeutic freedom partially perceived might be met by improved information on the reasons why some drugs are rated as less economical than others. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Main ID: DRKS00019820 (German Register of Clinical Studies and World Health Organization).

Extended duration of treatment using reduced-frequency dosing of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with advanced melanoma and Merkel cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Optimal duration of treatment (DoT) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in metastatic cancers remains unclear. Many patients, especially those without radiologic complete remission, develop progressive disease after ICI discontinuation. Extending DoT with ICI may potentially improve efficacy outcomes but presents major logistical and cost challenges with standard frequency dosing (SFD). Receptor occupancy data supports reduced frequency dosing (RFD) of anti-PD-1 antibodies, which may represent a more practical and economically viable option to extend DoT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with metastatic melanoma and Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), who received ICI at RFD administered every 3 months, after initial disease control at SFD. We evaluated efficacy, safety, and cost-savings of the RFD approach in this cohort. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2021, 23 patients with advanced melanoma (N = 18) or MCC (N = 5) received anti-PD-1 therapy at RFD. Median DoT was 1.1 years at SFD and 1.2 years at RFD. The 3 year PFS after start of RFD was 73% in melanoma and 100% in MCC patients, which compare favorably to historical control rates. In the subset of 15 patients who received at least 2 years of therapy, total savings amounted to $1.1 million in drug costs and 384 h saved despite the extended DoT (median 3.4 years), as compared to the calculated cost of 2 years at SFD. CONCLUSIONS: ICI administration at RFD can allow extension of treatment duration, while preserving efficacy and reducing logistical and financial burden. RFD approach deserves further exploration in prospective clinical trials.

The challenges of access to innovative medicines with limited evidence in the European Union.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) fosters access to innovative medicines through accelerated procedures and flexibility in the authorization requirements for diseases with unmet medical needs, such as many rare diseases as well as oncological diseases. However, the resulting increase of medicines being marketed with conditional authorizations and in exceptional circumstances has lead to higher clinical uncertainty about their efficacy and safety than when the standard authorizations are applied. This uncertainty has significant implications for clinical practice and the negotiation of pricing and reimbursement, particularly as high prices are based on assumptions of high value, supported by regulatory prioritization. The burden of clinical development is often shifted towards public healthcare systems, resulting in increased spending budgets and opportunity costs. Effective management of uncertainty, through appropriate testing and evaluation, and fair reflection of costs and risks in prices, is crucial. However, it is important not to sacrifice essential elements of evidence-based healthcare for the sake of access to new treatments. Balancing sensitive and rational access to new treatments, ensuring their safety, efficacy, and affordability to healthcare systems requires thoughtful decision-making. Ultimately, a responsible approach to timely access to innovative medicines that balances the needs of patients with healthcare systems' concerns is necessary. This approach emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and fair pricing and reimbursement.