Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Review Article

Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches

Author: Aidan Hollis

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The process of innovation is inherently complex, and it occurs within an even more complex institutional environment characterized by incomplete information, market power, and externalities. There are therefore different competing approaches to supporting and financing innovation in medical technologies, which bring their own advantages and disadvantages. This article reviews value- and cost-based pricing, as well direct government funding, and cross-cutting institutional structures. It argues that performance-based risk-sharing agreements are likely to have little effect on the sustainability of financing; that there is a role for cost-based pricing models in some situations; and that the push towards longer exclusivity periods is likely contrary to the interests of industry.
Literature
1.
Pekarsky BAK. The New Drug Reimbursement Game. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing; 2015.CrossRef
2.
Hailey D. Development of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):24–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Jönsson B. Relative effectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(2):97–102.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Persson U, Jönsson B. The end of the international reference pricing system? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rémuzat C, Urbinati D, Mzoughi O, El Hammi E, Belgaied W, Toumi M. Overview of external reference pricing systems in Europe. J Mark Access Heal Policy. 2015;3:27675.
6.
Maguire PT, Gibson E. The Cancer Drugs Fund and Patient Acces Schemes within the UK: increased access to oncology medicines or reduced value for money? Value Health. 2015;18(7):A484 (Elsevier).CrossRefPubMed
7.
Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Simoens S. Orphan drugs for rare diseases: Grounds for special status. Drug Dev Res. 2012;73(3):115–9.CrossRef
8.
Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating Cost-Effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ramsey S, Willke R, Glick H, Reed SD, Federico A, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—an ISPOR good research practives task force report. Value Health. 2015;18:161–72.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Heal Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.CrossRef
12.
Chan KKW, Willan AR, Gupta M, Pullenayegum E. Underestimation of uncertainties in health utilities derived from mapping algorithms involving health-related quality-of-life measures: statistical explanations and potential remedies. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(7):863–72. CrossRef
13.
Larson EB, Tachibana C, Thompson E, Coronado GD, DeBar L, Dember LM, et al. Trials without tribulations: minimizing the burden of pragmatic research on healthcare systems. Healthcare. 2015. doi:10.​1016/​j.​hjdsi.​2015.​07.​005 (Elsevier).
14.
Kalkman S, Van Thiel GJMW, Grobbee DE, Van Delden JJM. Pragmatic randomized trials in drug development pose new ethical questions: a systematic review. Drug Discov Today. 2015;20(7):856–62 (Elsevier Ltd).CrossRefPubMed
15.
Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D, Buxton M, Chalkidou K. Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS. Health Policy (New York). 2009;91(3):239–45.CrossRef
16.
Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, Culyer AJ, McCabe C, Walker S, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? Br Med J. 2008;336(7638):251–4.CrossRef
17.
18.
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and care excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19(14):1–503.CrossRef
19.
Jamison DT, Summers LH, Alleyne G, Arrow KJ, Berkley S, Binagwaho A, et al. Global health 2035: A world converging within a generation. Lancet. 2013;382(9908):1898–955 (Elsevier Ltd).CrossRefPubMed
20.
Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, Kahn JG, Rosen S. Thresholds for the cost—effectiveness of interventions : alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;2015(93):118–24.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Towse A, Garrison LP. Canʼt get no satisfaction? Will pay for performance help? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(2):93–102.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Niezen MGH, De Bont A, Busschbach JJV, Cohen JP, Stolk EA. Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;1:49–55.CrossRef
26.
27.
Dimasi JA, Paquette C. The economics of follow-on drug research and development. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;(22 Suppl.):1–14.
28.
Hollis A. Comment on “The economics of follow-on drug research and development”. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(12):1187–92.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Fagnan DE, Gromatzky AA, Stein RM, Fernandez JM, Lo AW. Financing drug discovery for orphan diseases. Drug Discov Today. 2014;19(5):533–8 (Elsevier Ltd).CrossRefPubMed
30.
Garrison LP, Towse A, Briggs A, De Pouvourville G, Grueger J, Mohr PE, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements—good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: Report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health. 2013;16(5):703–19 (Elsevier).CrossRefPubMed
31.
Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy (New York). 2010;96(3):179–90 (Elsevier Ireland Ltd).CrossRef
32.
De Pouvourville G. Risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs: A new solution to old problems? Eur J Heal Econ. 2006;7(3):155–7.CrossRef
33.
Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(4):425–32.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Garber AM, McClellan MB. Satisfaction guaranteed—“payment by results” for biologic agents. N Engl J Med. 2007;16(357):1575–7.CrossRef
35.
36.
Navarria A, Drago V, Gozzo L, Longo L, Mansueto S, Pignataro G, et al. Do the current performance-based schemes in Italy really work? “success fee”: a novel measure for cost-containment of drug expenditure. Value Health. 2015;18(1):131–6 (Elsevier).CrossRefPubMed
37.
Edlin R, Hall P, Wallner K, McCabe C. Sharing risk between payer and provider by leasing health technologies: An affordable and effective reimbursement strategy for innovative technologies? Value Health. 2014;17(4):438–44 (Elsevier).CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Kanavos P, Mills M. Options for the sustainable financing of innovative therapies. 2015.
40.
Gallini N, Scotchmer S. Intellectual property: when is it the best incentive system? Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 2. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002. p. 51–78.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Averch H, Johnson LL. Behavior of the firm under regulatory constraint. Am Econ Rev. 1962;52(5):1052–69.
45.
DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;22(2):151–85.CrossRefPubMed
46.
DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33 (Elsevier B.V.).CrossRefPubMed
47.
Chiu S. Pharmaceutical cost transparency act of 2016. California Assembly AB-463;2016.
48.
49.
Danzon PM, Towse A. Differential pricing for pharmaceuticals: reconciling access, R&D and patents. Int J Health Care Financ Econ. 2003;3(3):183–205.CrossRef
50.
Smith A. Lectures on jurisprudence. In: Meek RL, Raphael DD, Stein PG, editors. The glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1978.
51.
52.
Hemel DJ, Ouellette LL. Beyond the patents—prizes debate. Tex Law Rev. 2013;92:303–82.
53.
Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Szeinbach SL, Visaria J. Incentives for orphan drug research and development in the United States. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008;3:33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Moran M, Guzman J, Ropars AL, Illmer A. The role of product development partnerships in research and development for neglected diseases. Int Health. 2010;2(2):114–22.CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
Bishai DM, Champion C, Steele ME, Thompson L. Product development partnerships hit their stride: Lessons from developing a meningitis vaccine for Africa. Health Aff. 2011;30(6):1058–64.CrossRef
57.
Flynn S, Hollis A, Palmedo M. An economic justification for open access to essential medicine patents in developing countries. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37(2):184–208.CrossRefPubMed
58.
59.
60.
Banerjee A, Hollis A, Pogge T. The health impact fund: incentives for improving access to medicines. Lancet. 2010;375(9709):166–9.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Wang B, Liu J, Kesselheim AS. Variations in time of market exclusivity among top-selling prescription drugs in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):635–7.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Liu M, La Croix S. A cross-country index of intellectual property rights in pharmaceutical inventions. Res Policy. 2015;44(1):206–16 (Elsevier B.V.).CrossRef
63.
Liu J. Compulsory Licensing and Anti-Evergreening: interpreting the TRIPS flexibilities in sections 84 and 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act. Harv Int’l LJ. 2015;56:207.
64.
Chatterjee C, Kubo K, Pingali V. The consumer welfare implications of governmental policies and firm strategy in markets for medicines. J Health Econ. 2015;44:255–73 (Elsevier B.V).CrossRefPubMed
65.
Harrington SE. Cost of capital for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device firms. In: Danzon PM, Nicholson S, editors. The Oxford handbook of the economics of the biopharmaceutical industry 2012. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
66.
Metadata
Title
Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches
Author
Aidan Hollis
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0416-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

PharmacoEconomics 10/2016 Go to the issue

Research Letter

Publication of Cost-of-Illness Studies: Does Methodological Complexity Matter?

Practical Application

EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes

Original Research Article

The Effects of Diagnostic Definitions in Claims Data on Healthcare Cost Estimates: Evidence from a Large-Scale Panel Data Analysis of Diabetes Care in Japan

Original Research Article

A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Biologic and Non-Biologic Options for the Treatment of Adults with Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis after the Failure of Conventional Therapy

Original Research Article

Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Original Research Article

BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles