Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 1/2011

01-01-2011 | Leading Article

Accounting for the Drug Life Cycle and Future Drug Prices in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Author: Dr Martin Hoyle

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Economic evaluations of health technologies typically assume constant real drug prices andmodel only the cohort of patients currently eligible for treatment.
It has recently been suggested that, in the UK, we should assume that real drug prices decrease at 4%per annum and, in New Zealand, that real drug prices decrease at 2% per annum and at patent expiry the drug price falls. It has also recently been suggested that we should model multiple future incident cohorts. In this article, the cost effectiveness of drugs is modelled based on these ideas.
Algebraic expressions are developed to capture all costs and benefits over the entire life cycle of a new drug. The lifetime of a new drug in the UK, a key model parameter, is estimated as 33 years, based on the historical lifetime of drugs in England over the last 27 years. Under the proposed methodology, cost effectiveness is calculated for seven new drugs recently appraised in the UK. Cost effectiveness as assessed in the future is also estimated. Whilst the article is framed in mathematics, the findings and recommendations are also explained in non-mathematical language. The ‘life-cycle correction factor’ is introduced, which is used to convert estimates of cost effectiveness as traditionally calculated into estimates under the proposed methodology.
Under the proposed methodology, all seven drugs appear far more cost effective in the UK than published. For example, the incremental costeffectiveness ratio decreases by 46%, from £61900 to £33500 per QALY, for cinacalcet versus best supportive care for end-stage renal disease, and by 45%, from £31100 to £17000 per QALY, for imatinib versus interferon-α for chronic myeloid leukaemia. Assuming real drug prices decrease over time, the chance that a drug is publicly funded increases over time, and is greater when modelling multiple cohorts than with a single cohort.
Using the methodology (compared with traditional methodology) all drugs in the UK and New Zealand are predicted to be more cost effective. It is suggested that the willingness-to-pay threshold should be reduced in the UK and New Zealand. The ranking of cost effectiveness will change with drugs assessed as relatively more cost effective and medical devices and surgical procedures relatively less cost effective than previously thought. The methodology is very simple to implement. It is suggested that the model should be parameterized for other countries.
Literature
1.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008
2.
go back to reference Hoyle M, Anderson R. Whose costs and benefits? Why economic evaluations should simulate both prevalent and all future incident patient cohorts. Med Decis Making 2010 Jul-Aug; 30 (4): 426–37 Hoyle M, Anderson R. Whose costs and benefits? Why economic evaluations should simulate both prevalent and all future incident patient cohorts. Med Decis Making 2010 Jul-Aug; 30 (4): 426–37
3.
go back to reference Hoyle M. Future drug prices and cost-effectiveness analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (7): 589–602PubMedCrossRef Hoyle M. Future drug prices and cost-effectiveness analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (7): 589–602PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Brand loyalty, entry, and price-competition in pharmaceuticals after the 1984 Drug Act. J Law Econ 1992; 35 (2): 331–50CrossRef Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Brand loyalty, entry, and price-competition in pharmaceuticals after the 1984 Drug Act. J Law Econ 1992; 35 (2): 331–50CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, et al. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 176–213 Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, et al. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 176–213
7.
go back to reference Garrison LP, Mansley EC, Abbott TA, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective. The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report: part II. Value Health 2010; 13 (1): 8–13 Garrison LP, Mansley EC, Abbott TA, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective. The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report: part II. Value Health 2010; 13 (1): 8–13
9.
go back to reference Salomon JA, Weinstein MC, Goldie SJ. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2004; 329 (7468): 733–6PubMedCrossRef Salomon JA, Weinstein MC, Goldie SJ. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2004; 329 (7468): 733–6PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Thompson Coon J, Hoyle M, Green C, et al. Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14 (2): 1–184, iii-ivPubMed Thompson Coon J, Hoyle M, Green C, et al. Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14 (2): 1–184, iii-ivPubMed
15.
go back to reference Garber AM, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW, et al. Theoretical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 25–53 Garber AM, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW, et al. Theoretical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 25–53
16.
go back to reference Shih YCT, Han S, Cantor SB. Impact of generic drug entry on cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2005; 25 (1): 71–80PubMedCrossRef Shih YCT, Han S, Cantor SB. Impact of generic drug entry on cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2005; 25 (1): 71–80PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13 (44): 1–330 Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13 (44): 1–330
19.
go back to reference McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE costeffectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 733–44PubMedCrossRef McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE costeffectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 733–44PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Accounting for the Drug Life Cycle and Future Drug Prices in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Author
Dr Martin Hoyle
Publication date
01-01-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11584230-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

PharmacoEconomics 1/2011 Go to the issue

Correspondence

The Authors’ Reply