Dataset Information

Value-Based Pricing and Budget Impact Analysis for Multi-Indication Drugs: A Case Study of Immunotherapies.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to calculate the value-based price of each indication and compare the drug price and budget impact among value-based pricing (VBP) scenarios, using immunotherapy as a case. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab prices were estimated for VBP scenarios, namely indication value-based pricing (IBP), IBP with refund, and weighted-average pricing (WAP). To estimate the value-based price of each indication, cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted by setting the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the first reimbursed indication to the threshold. The budget impact for each scenario was compared with that of the pricing system in Korea (which has a 4.75% price reduction). The value-based prices of non-reimbursed indications were lower for atezolizumab and higher for nivolumab than those for the reimbursed indication. The drug price fluctuations were the largest in IBP, varying between 28.56-328.81% of the current list price. The net price of the non-reimbursed indications decreased from 0% to 71.44% in IBP with refund, and the budget impact was the lowest among VBPs. Although the fluctuation in the budget impact in WAP was smaller than IBP, higher drug prices were identified for low-value indications. In conclusion, IBP with refund is a viable method for multi-indication drugs, because it has minimal drug price and budget impact changes.

SUBMITTER: Ha SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8998444 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Value-Based Pricing and Budget Impact Analysis for Multi-Indication Drugs: A Case Study of Immunotherapies.

Ha So-Young SY Kang Dong-Won DW Jung Hye-In HI Lee Eui-Kyung EK Park Mi-Hai MH

International journal of environmental research and public health 20220330 7

We aimed to calculate the value-based price of each indication and compare the drug price and budget impact among value-based pricing (VBP) scenarios, using immunotherapy as a case. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab prices were estimated for VBP scenarios, namely indication value-based pricing (IBP), IBP with refund, and weighted-average pricing (WAP). To estimate the value-based price of each indication, cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted by setting the incremental cost-effecti ...[more]

PMID: 35409788

Similar Datasets

Project description:The role of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in incentivizing innovation is controversial. Critics of CEA argue that its use for pricing purposes disregards the 'value of innovation' reflected in new drug development, whereas supporters of CEA highlight that the value of innovation is already accounted for. Our objective in this article is to outline the limitations of the conventional CEA approach, while proposing an alternative method of evaluation that captures the value of innovation more accurately. The adoption of a new drug benefits present and future patients (with cost implications) for as long as the drug is part of clinical practice. Incidence patients and off-patent prices are identified as two key missing features preventing the conventional CEA approach from capturing 1) benefit to future patients and 2) future savings from off-patent prices. The proposed CEA approach incorporates these two features to derive the total lifetime value of an innovative drug (i.e., the value of innovation). The conventional CEA approach tends to underestimate the value of innovative drugs by disregarding the benefit to future patients and savings from off-patent prices. As a result, innovative drugs are underpriced, only allowing manufacturers to capture approximately 15% of the total value of innovation during the patent protection period. In addition to including the incidence population and off-patent price, the alternative approach proposes pricing new drugs by first negotiating the share of value of innovation to be appropriated by the manufacturer (>15%?) and payer (<85%?), in order to then identify the drug price that satisfies this condition. We argue for a modification to the conventional CEA approach that integrates the total lifetime value of innovative drugs into CEA, by taking into account off-patent pricing and future patients. The proposed approach derives a price that allows manufacturers to capture an agreed share of this value, thereby incentivizing innovation, while supporting health-care systems to pursue dynamic allocative efficiency. However, the long-term sustainability of health-care systems must be assessed before this proposal is adopted by policy makers.

Project description:PurposeOncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.MethodsTwenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions.ResultsFirst approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05-3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02-1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05-2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2-63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5-109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1-720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions.ConclusionsResults suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication's differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.

Project description:IntroductionCalifornia's Workers' Compensation System (CAWCS) Department of Industrial Relations questioned the adequacy of the current Medi-Cal fee-schedule pricing and requested analysis of alternatives that maximize price availability and maintain budget neutrality.ObjectivesTo compare CAWCS pharmacy-dispensed (PD) drug prices under alternative fee schedules, and identify combinations of alternative benchmarks that have prices available for the largest percentage of PD drugs and that best reach budget neutrality.MethodsClaims transaction-level data (2011-2013) from CAWCS were used to estimate total annual PD pharmaceutical payments. Medi-Cal pricing data was from the Workman's Compensation Insurance System (WCIS). Average Wholesale Prices (AWP), Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC), Direct Prices (DP), Federal Upper Limit (FUL) prices, and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs (NADAC) were from Medi-Span. We matched National Drug Codes (NDCs), pricing dates, and drug quantity for comparisons. We report pharmacy-dispensed (PD) claims frequency, reimbursement matching rate, and paid costs by CAWCS as the reference price against all alternative price benchmarks.ResultsOf 12,529,977 CAWCS claims for pharmaceutical products 11.6% (1,462,814) were for PD drugs. Prescription drug cost for CAWCS was over $152M; $63.9M, $47.9M, and $40.6M in 2011-2013. Ninety seven percent of these CAWCS PD claims had a Medi-Cal price. Alternative mechanisms provided a price for fewer claims; NADAC 94.23%, AWP 90.94%, FUL 73.11%, WAC 66.98%, and DP 14.33%. Among CAWCS drugs with no Medi-Cal price in PD claims, AWP, WAC, NADAC, DP, and FUL provided prices for 96.7%, 63.14%, 24.82%, 20.83%, and 15.08% of claims. Overall CAWCS paid 100.52% of Medi-Cal, 60% of AWP, 97% of WAC, 309.53% of FUL, 103.83% of DP, and 136.27% of NADAC.ConclusionsCAWCS current Medi-Cal fee-schedule price list for PD drugs is more complete than all alternative fee-schedules. However, all reimbursement approaches would require combinations of pricing benchmarks. We suggest keeping primary reimbursement at 100% of Medi-Cal and for drugs without a primary Medi-Cal price calculating the maximum fee as 60% of AWP and then 97% of WAC. Alternatively, we suggest using NADAC as a primary fee-schedule followed by either 60% AWP and 97% WAC or AWP-40% for drugs with no NADAC price. Fee-schedules may not offer the best price and a formulary approach may provide more flexibility.

Project description:BackgroundExpanding the indication of already approved immuno-oncology drugs presents treatment opportunities for patients but also strains healthcare systems. Cost-based pricing models are discussed as a possibility for cost containment. This study focuses on two drugs, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and daratumumab (Darzalex), to explore the potential effect of indication broadening on the estimated price when using the cost-based pricing (CBP) model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg (2018).MethodsThe model was used to calculate cumulative yearly prices, cumulative prices per indication, and non-cumulative indication-based prices using inputs such as research and development (R&D) costs, manufacturing costs, eligible patient population, and a profit margin. A deterministic stepwise analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to examine how sensitive the estimated price is to the different input assumptions.ResultsThe yearly cumulative cost-based prices (CBPs) ranged from €52 to €885 for pembrolizumab per vial and €823 to €31,941 for daratumumab per vial. Prices were higher in initial years or indications due to smaller patient populations, decreased over time or after additional indications. Sensitivity analysis showed that the number of eligible patients had the most significant impact on the estimated price. In the scenario analysis the profit margin contributed most to a higher CBPs for both drugs. Lower estimates resulted from assumed lower R&D costs.DiscussionThe estimated CBPs are consistently lower than Dutch list prices for pembrolizumab (€2,861), mainly resulting from larger patient populations in registered indications. However, daratumumab's list prices fall within the range of modeled CBPs depending on the year or indication (€4,766). Both CBPs decrease over time or with additional indications. The number of eligible patients and initial R&D costs have the most significant influence on the CBPs. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussions on pharmaceutical pricing, especially concerning cancer drugs with expanding indications.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical spending has been increasing rapidly for years and is higher than ever before. To control the rising costs, countries are implementing regulatory frameworks such as (internal) reference pricing, price cuts or generics substitution. Internal reference pricing establishes a reference price within a country which serves as the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of pharmaceuticals. Price setting in the German market is especially relevant for many European countries, which use Germany as a reference country for their own price setting.MethodsWe evaluate pharmaceutical price dynamics for not reference priced pharmaceuticals (NRPs) as well as for reference priced pharmaceuticals (RPs) in Germany-referring to the internal reference price system. 64,862 medication packs have been extracted from the German pharmaceutical pricing register Lauer-Taxe. For each pack, we extracted detailed data on the company, manufacturer rebates, pharmacy retail prices, reference prices, co-payments, import quotas, and discount agreements. We then investigated price setting and dynamics of NRPs vs. RPs for all 14 indication areas by ATC code level 1.ResultsThe average manufacturer price per pack was 604.84€ for NRPs and 112.11€ for RPs. Similar differences were found for the wholesale price and the pharmacy retail price. The reference price was-as expected-0.00€ for NRPs, and 154.40€ for RPs. NRP packs were imported in 42.38%, while RP packs were imported only in 24.62%. Highest average pharmacy retail prices could be found in the therapeutic areas 'antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents' (1711.47€), 'systemic hormonal preparations' (1331.95€), and 'blood and blood forming organs' (1260.58€). We detected high fluctuations in pharmacy retail prices per indication, as well as for reference prices per indication. The indications with the highest number of reference price regulated medical packs are 'cardiovascular system', 'musculo-skeletal system', and 'nervous system'. Highest co-payments were found in the indications 'antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents', 'blood and blood forming organs', and 'antiinfectives for systemic use'.ConclusionPrice setting and price dynamics vary substantially between NRP and RP medication packs. Further, we saw major differences across all indication areas as well as when comparing medication packs launched by top 20 pharma companies vs. the rest.

Project description:Background: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is an economic assessment that estimates the financial consequences of adopting a new intervention. BIA is used to make informed reimbursement decisions, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Objectives: We systematically reviewed BIA studies associated with anti-diabetic drugs and assessed the extent to which international BIA guidelines were followed in these studies. Methods: We conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data knowledge Service platform from database inception to June 30, 2021. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for assessing BIAs. We extracted and compared the study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force to evaluate the guideline compliance of the included BIA. Results: A total of eighteen studies on the BIA for anti-diabetic drugs were identified. More than half studies were from developed countries. Seventeen studies were based on model and one study was based on real-world data. Overall, analysis considered a payer perspective, reported potential budget impacts over 1-5 years. Assumptions were mainly made about target population size, market share uptake of new interventions, and scope of cost. The data used for analysis varied among studies and was rarely justified. Model validation and sensitivity analysis were lacking in the current BIA studies. Rebate analysis was conducted in a few studies to explore the price discount that was required for new interventions to demonstrate cost equivalence to comparators. Conclusion: Existing studies evaluating budget impact for anti-diabetic drugs vary greatly in methodology, some of which showed low compliance to good practice guidelines. In order for the BIA to be useful for assisting in health plan decision-making, it is important for future studies to optimize compliance to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on BIA. Model validation and sensitivity analysis should also be improved in future BIA studies. Continued improvement of BIA using real-world data is necessary to ensure high-quality analyses and to provide reliable results.

Project description:BackgroundNew indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.MethodsWe considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.ResultsThe mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.ConclusionThe negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.

Dataset Information

Value-Based Pricing and Budget Impact Analysis for Multi-Indication Drugs: A Case Study of Immunotherapies.

Publications

Value-Based Pricing and Budget Impact Analysis for Multi-Indication Drugs: A Case Study of Immunotherapies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets