ABSTRACT
Ever since the introduction of the Market Restructuring Act, the evaluation and price negotiations of drugs have been controversial. While the Federal Joint Committee considers that the process is transparent and in accordance with clear evidence-based criteria, representatives of pharmaceutical companies are particularly critical of the fact that the central association of statutory health insurance is involved in both the determination of added therapeutic benefit of drugs as well as in the subsequent price negotiation. In this study, we investigate these 2 contradictory assessments empirically. For this purpose, we model the benefit assessment and price negotiation processes under AMNOG and analyze their relationship. We show that the number of patients in the target population, and the annual cost of therapy for the appropriate comparator therapy have a negative influence on the determination of the added benefit of the new therapy. The added value itself has a positive (negative) effect on the mark-up for the appropriate comparator therapy (price discount), while the annual treatment costs of the new therapy (which appropriate comparator therapy) have a positive (negative) influence. We find clues, but no significant evidence for the hypothesis that the decisions on the added value of new medicines and the subsequent price negotiations are interdependent.