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

The European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2020-02-01 Epub Date: 2019-10-03 DOI:10.1007/s10198-019-01116-4
Panos Kanavos, Anna-Maria Fontrier, Jennifer Gill, Olina Efthymiadou
{"title":"Does external reference pricing deliver what it promises? Evidence on its impact at national level.","authors":"Panos Kanavos, Anna-Maria Fontrier, Jennifer Gill, Olina Efthymiadou","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01116-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary and secondary data collection through a survey of leading experts and a systematic literature review, respectively, over the 2000-2017 period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7058621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01116-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/10/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外部参考定价是否兑现了承诺?关于其在国家层面影响的证据。
背景:外部参考定价(ERP)被广泛用于规范药品价格和帮助确定报销额度。各国的实施情况大不相同,因此很难研究和了解其对主要政策目标的影响:评估不同环境下企业资源规划的证据及其对主要卫生政策目标的影响,特别是对成本控制、药品价格水平、药品使用、公平、效率、可用性、可负担性和产业政策的影响;其次,严格评估企业资源规划证据的质量:方法:分别通过对主要专家的调查和 2000-2017 年间的系统文献综述收集第一手和第二手数据:结果:45 项研究被纳入系统性回顾(2000 年 1 月至 2016 年 12 月)。通过向 21 个国家的专家发放调查问卷(2017 年 1 月至 7 月)收集了主要证据。企业资源规划有助于控制成本,但这只是短期效应,很大程度上取决于企业资源规划的设计和实施方式。企业资源规划导致的低价格可能会影响药品的供应,并导致药品上市延迟或产品撤出。价格向下趋同会阻碍创新投资。企业资源规划似乎并不能提高实现卫生系统目标的效率。由于证据不足,在解释结果时需要谨慎:ERP并没有有效地调节价格,其意外后果减少了ERP带来的益处。如果对企业资源规划进行精心设计,将价格调整幅度降到最低,审慎选择篮子规模和国家,并考虑交易价格,那么企业资源规划可能会成为一种更有效的机制,从而提高福利,促进各国公平获得药品,并有助于推动行业创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mapping functions for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 to generate EQ-5D-3L for economic evaluation Economic assessment of abemaciclib for the adjuvant treatment of luminal HER2- breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish health system Healthcare resource utilisation and direct medical cost for individuals with 5q spinal muscular atrophy in Sweden Economic evaluation of intensive home treatment in comparison to care as usual alongside a randomised controlled trial The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1