International impact of external reference pricing: should national policy-makers care?

The Hurdle of Access to Emerging Therapies and Potential Solutions in the Management of Dyslipidemias

This review explores the many barriers to accessing lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) for the prevention and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Geographical, knowledge, and regulatory barriers significantly impede access to LLTs, exacerbating disparities in healthcare infrastructure and affordability. We highlight the importance of policy reforms, including pricing regulations and reimbursement policies, for enhancing affordability and streamlining regulatory processes. Innovative funding models, such as value-based pricing and outcome-based payment arrangements, have been recommended to make novel LLTs more accessible. Public health interventions, including community-based programs and telemedicine, can be utilized to reach underserved populations and improve medication adherence. Education and advocacy initiatives led by patient advocacy groups and healthcare providers play a crucial role in raising awareness and empowering patients. Despite the barriers to access, novel LLTs present a big opportunity to reduce the burden of ASCVD, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts among policymakers, healthcare providers, industry stakeholders, and patient advocacy groups to address these barriers to improve access to LLTs globally.

Examining confidential wholesale margin estimates in European countries for the price negotiation of patented drugs in Germany: a statistical model

BACKGROUND

Based on the legal framework laid down in section 130b (9) of Book V of the German Social Code, various criteria are relevant for the negotiated price for new patented drugs in Germany. European reference prices (ERPs) are one criterion. The ERP is based on the ex-factory prices (EFPs) of the countries included in the European country basket. However, in some of these countries, the EFP is not published due to confidential wholesale margins. Wholesale margins must therefore be estimated and deducted from purchase prices. In this context literature-based estimates to date do not assume regressive margins with higher pharmaceutical prices. This assumption is questionable and can lead to systematically underestimated country prices, especially for high-priced drugs. Percentage wholesale margins in the majority of European countries develop to a comparable extent regressively with increasing prices. It should therefore be examined (1) whether statistical models can predict the margins of individual countries, in principle and especially for countries where margins are unknown and regressive trends are likely, and (2) to what extent the estimation of margins improves when regressive statistical models are used to estimate margins instead of cross-price averages published in the literature.

METHODS

Qualitative preliminary research explores the basic wholesale pricing mechanisms in countries with confidential wholesale margins. Wholesale margins for reimbursable drugs were then modeled for regulated European countries. Estimation quality and impact of the model was compared to estimations based on average margins.

RESULTS

In both regulated countries and in countries with confidential wholesale margins, percentage margins of wholesalers develop regressively as drug prices rise. Regressive courses of margins can be resiliently modeled for the regulated countries using a power distribution with significantly lower mean squared errors in a linear mixed model in comparison to literature-based estimations with country-specific cross-price averages.

CONCLUSION

If there is reason to believe that margins are regressive, confidential wholesale margins are expected to be better estimated by the power function based on margins of regulated countries than by the published country-specific average margins, reducing significantly inaccurate effects on margin estimations of high-price drugs.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

Pricing of in-patent pharmaceuticals in the Middle East and North Africa: Is external reference pricing implemented optimally?

In this paper we outline and compare pharmaceutical pricing policies for in-patent prescription pharmaceuticals with emphasis on external reference pricing (ERP) in eleven countries across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and explore possible improvements in their pricing systems. Primary and secondary evidence was used to inform our analysis. Comparative analysis of ERP systems across countries followed an analytical framework distilling ERP into twelve salient features, while ERP system performance was benchmarked against a framework of best practice principles across (a) objectives and scope, (b) administration and operations, (c) methods used, and (d) implementation. Results suggest that ERP is the dominant pricing method for in-patent pharmaceuticals. Although several good practice cases were identified, none of the eleven countries satisfy all best practice principles. ERP basket sizes vary significantly and are commonly composed using geographical proximity and low-price countries as criteria. Nine countries do not use the mean or median prices, but resort to using the lowest. Exchange rate fluctuations are routinely used to arrive at price reductions in local currency. Significant opportunities exist for MENA countries to develop their ERP regimes to achieve greater compliance with best practice principles. Over the short-term, incremental changes could be implemented to several ERP salient features and can be achieved relatively easily, thereby enhancing the functionality and performance of national ERP systems. Countries in the region can also focus on the development of explicit value assessment systems, and minimize their dependence on ERP over the longer-term.

Value-based tiered pricing for universal health coverage: an idea worth revisiting

The pricing of medicines and health products ranks among the most hotly debated topics in health policy, generating controversy in richer and poorer markets alike. Creating the right pricing structure for pharmaceuticals and other healthcare products is particularly important for low- and middle-income countries, where pharmaceuticals account for a significant portion of total health expenditure; high medicine prices therefore threaten the feasibility and sustainability of nascent schemes for universal health coverage (UHC). We argue that a strategic system of value-based tiered pricing (VBTP), wherein each country would pay a price for each health product commensurate with the local value it provides, could improve access, enhance efficiency, and empower countries to negotiate with product manufacturers. This paper attempts to further understanding on the potential value of tiered pricing, barriers to its implementation, and potential strategies to overcome those.

Value-based tiered pricing for universal health coverage: an idea worth revisiting

The pricing of medicines and health products ranks among the most hotly debated topics in health policy, generating controversy in richer and poorer markets alike. Creating the right pricing structure for pharmaceuticals and other healthcare products is particularly important for low- and middle-income countries, where pharmaceuticals account for a significant portion of total health expenditure; high medicine prices therefore threaten the feasibility and sustainability of nascent schemes for universal health coverage (UHC). We argue that a strategic system of value-based tiered pricing (VBTP), wherein each country would pay a price for each health product commensurate with the local value it provides, could improve access, enhance efficiency, and empower countries to negotiate with product manufacturers. This paper attempts to further understanding on the potential value of tiered pricing, barriers to its implementation, and potential strategies to overcome those.

Does external reference pricing deliver what it promises? Evidence on its impact at national level

BACKGROUND

External reference pricing (ERP) is widely used to regulate pharmaceutical prices and help determine reimbursement. Its implementation varies substantially across countries, making it difficult to study and understand its impact on key policy objectives.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence on ERP in different settings and its impact on key health policy objectives, notably, cost-containment, pharmaceutical price levels, drug use, equity, efficiency, availability, affordability and industrial policy; and second, to critically assess the quality of evidence on ERP.

METHODS

Primary and secondary data collection through a survey of leading experts and a systematic literature review, respectively, over the 2000-2017 period.

RESULTS

Forty five studies were included in the systematic review (January 2000-December 2016). Primary evidence was gathered via survey distribution to experts in 21 countries (January-July 2017). ERP contributes to cost-containment, but this is a short-term effect highly dependent on the way ERP is designed and implemented. Low prices, as a result of ERP, can undermine the availability of medicines and lead to launch delays or product withdrawals. Downward price convergence can hamper investment in innovation. ERP does not seem to promote efficiency in achieving health system goals. As evidence is weak, results need to be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

ERP has not regulated prices efficiently and has unintended consequences that reduce the benefits arising from it. If ERP is carefully designed with minimal price revisions, prudent selection of basket size and countries, and consideration of transaction prices, it could be a more effective mechanism enhancing welfare, equitable access to medicines within countries and help promote industry innovation.

Variations in external reference pricing implementation: does it matter for public policy?

BACKGROUND

External reference pricing (ERP) seeks to rationalize prices and contain costs using foreign prices as a reference for the determination of domestic prices and is often used as the starting point for the facilitation of negotiations between health authorities and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was used to identify characteristics of ERP implementation across 29 countries. Primary data collection, in the form of surveys directed at key stakeholders, was also used to supplement data in instances where information received from the systematic literature review was outdated or minimal. Findings from the systematic literature review and primary evidence from key stakeholders were bench-marked against 14 best practice principles inherent to an optimal ERP system.

RESULTS

Significant heterogeneity in ERP implementation across countries was identified. Country basket size, pricing calculation, and frequency of price revisions varied between countries. Belgium, France, and South Africa were more likely to adhere to the best practice principles, whilst Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania had the most instances of non-adherence.

CONCLUSION

The observed heterogeneity has policy implications for governments including globally declining pharmaceutical prices, launch delays in lower income countries, reduced incentive for continued R&D, and reduced access to medicines. Overcoming this issue to ensure that ERP is beneficial to all stakeholders will require a focus on developing sustainable, transparent, simple, and stable systems using a set of key guidelines that should maximize the benefits of the pricing policy.