Determinants of Orphan Drug Prices in Germany

Evidence Quality and Health Technology Assessment Outcomes in Reappraisals of Drugs for Rare Diseases in Germany

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on reappraisals of health technologies in Germany is limited, and for rare disease treatments (RDTs), the Federal Joint Committee follows different processes (limited or regular), depending on whether an annual revenue threshold has been exceeded. Our objective is to better understand (re)appraisal processes and their outcomes for RDTs in Germany.

METHODS

We analyzed appraisal documents of 55 RDT indications for which an initial appraisal and a reappraisal were conducted between 2011 and 2023. We extracted information for the type of evidence, the risk of bias, the availability of additional evidence, and the change in the maturity of survival data as proxies for evidence quality. Specifically, we reviewed the reasons for conducting reappraisals, examined how evidence quality and the clinical benefit rating (CBR) differed between initial appraisals and reappraisals, and explored the association between evidence quality and (1) the CBR and (2) the change in the CBR after reappraisal.

RESULTS

Most reappraisals were conducted because the annual revenue threshold was exceeded or the initial appraisal resolution was time limited. Almost all initial appraisals used the limited process, whereas the majority of reappraisals used the regular process. The CBR increased in only 9 and decreased in 21 of 55 reappraisals. There was some evidence that reappraisals with an accepted randomized controlled trial were significantly more likely to achieve a higher CBR.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings confirmed that reasons and processes for conducting reappraisals of RDTs in Germany differ. Further, high CBRs in reappraisals were not common and evidence quality in initial appraisals and reappraisals was limited.

Variables affecting new drug prices in South Korea's pricing system

Objective: The price of pharmaceuticals is important from the economic and industrial perspectives but as well as patients' access to treatment. This study aimed to analyze the variables affecting the prices of new drugs in South Korea's pricing system. Methods: Data on 192 new drugs listed in South Korea from 2012 to 2022 were collected from the official website of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The independent variables included drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, number of patients, number of advanced 7 countries listed, budget impact, and listing period. The dependent variables included annual treatment cost and the price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price. Descriptive statistics of variables, linear correlations between quantitative independent and dependent variables, and associations between independent and dependent variables were analyzed. Results: The mean annual treatment cost and price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price were higher for drugs for severe diseases and those with no alternatives. Annual treatment cost and price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price were negatively correlated with the number of patients and positively correlated with the number of advanced 7 countries listed. Annual treatment cost was affected by the variables drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, number of patients, number of advanced 7 countries listed, and budget impact. The price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price was affected by drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, and the number of patients. Conclusion: This study revealed the effect of different variables on the prices of new drugs in South Korea, allowing for the development of a more effective assessment system to evaluate the prices of new drugs while ensuring profitability for pharmaceutical companies, sustainability of public insurance, and accessibility to drugs by patients.

Ten years of German benefit assessment: price analysis for drugs with unproven additional benefit

INTRODUCTION

Since 2011, the prices for all new drugs in Germany are negotiated based on a benefit assessment. The purpose of this study was to analyze the price regulation of drugs with unproven additional benefit.

METHODS

Benefit assessment procedures from 2011 to 2020 were reviewed and selected through AMNOG Monitor and Lauer Taxe. Negotiated annual therapy costs, the annual costs of the most cost-efficient appropriate comparative therapy (ACT) and the potential budget impact for 33 included procedures were calculated.

RESULTS

55% of the included drugs achieved a negotiated price higher than the most cost-efficient ACT, 3% were identified as equal and 42% showed lower negotiated prices. The potential savings exceeded expenditures by around EUR 523.5 m. After price flexibility was adopted by the legislator in 2017, the overall potential savings still outweighed the expenditures by around EUR 62 m.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that making price negotiations more flexible by law does not undermine the fundamental aim of the AMNOG, which is to avoid additional expenditure without increased patient benefit. The regulation can thus fulfill the objective provided by the legislature of keeping drugs without proven additional benefits in the German healthcare system.

How to Predict Drug Expenditure: A Markov Model Approach with Risk Classes

BACKGROUND

Although pharmaceutical expenditures have been rising for decades, the question of their drivers remains unclear, and long-term projections of pharmaceutical spending are still scarce. We use a Markov approach considering different cost-risk groups to show the possible range of future drug spending in Germany and illustrate the influence of various determinants on pharmaceutical expenditure.

METHODS

We compute different medium and long-term projections of pharmaceutical expenditure in Germany up to 2060 and compare extrapolations with constant shares, time-to-death scenarios, and Markov modeling based on transition probabilities. Our modeling is based on data from a large statutory sickness fund covering around four million insureds. We divide the population into six risk groups according to their share of total pharmaceutical expenditures, determine their cost growth rates, survival and transition probabilities, and compute different scenarios related to changes in life expectancy or spending trends in different cost-risk groups.

RESULTS

If the spending trends in the high-cost groups continue, per-capita expenditure will increase by over 40% until 2040. By 2060, pharmaceutical expenditures could more than double, even if these groups would not benefit from rising life expectancy. By contrast, the isolated effect of demographic change would "only" lead to a long-term increase of around 15%.

CONCLUSION

The long-term development of pharmaceutical spending in Germany will depend mainly on future expenditure and life expectancy trends of particularly high-cost patients. Thus, appropriate pricing of new expensive pharmaceuticals is essential for the sustainability of the German healthcare system.

Disentangling the Cost of Orphan Drugs Marketed in the United States

The increasing number and high prices of orphan drugs have triggered concern among patients, payers, and policymakers about the affordability of new drugs approved using the incentives set by the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983. This study evaluated the factors associated to the differences in the treatment cost of new orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 2017 to 2021. A generalized linear model (GLM) with the Gamma log-link analysis was used to ascertain the association of drug characteristics with the treatment costs of orphan and non-orphan drugs. The results of the study showed that the median and interquartile range (IQR) drug cost was USD 218,872 (IQR = USD 23,105) for orphan drugs and USD 12,798 (IQR = USD 57,940) for non-orphan drugs (p < 0.001). Higher market entry prices were associated with biologics (108%; p < 0.001), orphan status (177%; p < 0.001), US sponsor companies (48%; p = 0.035), chronic use (1083%; p < 0.001), treatment intent (163%; p = 0.004), and indications for oncology (624%; p < 0.001) or genetic disorders (624%; p < 0.001). Higher market entry treatment cost for newly approved drugs were associated with biologics, orphan status, US sponsor companies, chronic use, therapeutic intent, and indications for oncology or genetic disorders.

Role of Economic Evaluations on Pricing of Medicines Reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), alongside other factors, predicts the final outcome of medicine price negotiation in Italy. The second objective was to depict the mean ICER of medicines obtained after negotiation.

METHODS

Data were extracted from company dossiers submitted to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) from October 2016 to January 2021 and AIFA's internal database. Beta-based regression analyses were used to test the effect of ICER and other variables on the outcome of price negotiation (ΔP), defined as the percentage difference between the list price requested by manufacturers and the final price paid by the Italian National Health Service (INHS).

RESULTS

In our dataset of 48 pricing and reimbursement procedures, the ICER before negotiation was one of the variables with a major impact on the outcome of negotiation when ≥ 40,000€/QALY. As resulting from multiple regression analyses, the effect of the ICER on ΔP seemed driven by medicines for non-onco-immunological and non-rare diseases. Overall, the negotiation process granted mean incremental costs of €64,688 and mean incremental QALYs of 1.96, yielding an average ICER of €33,004/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides support on the influence of cost-effectiveness analysis on price negotiation in the Italian context, providing an estimate of the mean ICER of reimbursed medicines, calculated using net confidential prices charged by the INHS. The role and use of economic evaluations in medicines pricing should be further improved to get the best value for money.

How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence

BACKGROUND

Various forms of value-based pricing policies for new medicines have recently been introduced in OECD countries. While these initiatives are expected to have a positive impact on societal outcomes such as availability, affordability and value for money, scientific evidence on this impact is scarce due to confidential agreements.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the impact of value-based policy interventions in price negotiations on patient benefit in an experimental setting.

METHODS

An online experiment was conducted (n = 269). Participants were randomly assigned into the active role of either a buyer or seller in two intervention groups (cost-benefit, risk-sharing) and one control group. Decisions had real monetary consequences on other participants and through donations to a patient association.

RESULTS

Patient access, benefit and value for money were higher in the cost-benefit group than in the risk-sharing group. An available alternative to the agreement led to higher price offers. This effect was weaker in the cost-benefit group.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of price negotiations on patient benefit depend on the alternatives available for failed or delayed negotiations. A shared but voluntary valuation framework might increase patient access, benefit, and value for money. The cost containment effect of risk-sharing agreements may be offset by the negative impact on overall patient benefit. Further development of the approach could provide support for policy design of pharmaceutical pricing regulations.

A decade of early benefit assessment of ophthalmic drugs in Germany: success story or not?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze how ophthalmic drugs fared in the early benefit assessment (EBA) after its introduction in Germany up to 2020 and to quantify its impact on their negotiated prices.

METHODS

Relevant documents were screened and essential content on added benefit outcomes and the underlying evidence was extracted next to pricing information. In addition to descriptive statistics, cross-stakeholder analyses and agreement statistics were implemented.

RESULTS

Thirteen completed EBA were identified involving eight drugs. Only four drugs (30.8%) received an added benefit. The OR for no added benefit of ophthalmic drugs versus all other drugs was 2.971 (0.902-9.781). The agreement between manufacturers' claims and decision-maker appraisals is fair (kappa 0.435). In all cases, evidence was derived for RCTs, but for different reasons, not all of them allowed direct comparisons with the comparator as defined by the decision-maker. The negotiated rebates on manufacturer's selling prices varied from 6.8% up to 47.4%. Nevertheless, the rebates for ophthalmic drugs (median 14.5%) were lower than those for all negotiated drugs (median 24%).

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, the EBA of ophthalmic drugs was not necessarily a success story, but in most of the cases, the drugs were successful in the market.