从基于适应症的定价到混合方法:意大利价格和报销谈判的证据。

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-16 DOI:10.1007/s41669-023-00467-2
Elvio Emanuele Rossini, Carlotta Galeone, Chiara Lucchetti, Claudio Jommi
{"title":"从基于适应症的定价到混合方法:意大利价格和报销谈判的证据。","authors":"Elvio Emanuele Rossini, Carlotta Galeone, Chiara Lucchetti, Claudio Jommi","doi":"10.1007/s41669-023-00467-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10883902/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Indication-Based Pricing to Blended Approach: Evidence on the Price and Reimbursement Negotiation in Italy.\",\"authors\":\"Elvio Emanuele Rossini, Carlotta Galeone, Chiara Lucchetti, Claudio Jommi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-023-00467-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10883902/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00467-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00467-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着时间的推移,现有药品的新适应症越来越多。在大多数国家,每批准一个新适应症,都要重新谈判药品定价和报销条件。人们越来越关注新适应症的价格谈判模式,特别是比较基于适应症的方法和混合方法。然而,目前有关这些谈判的复杂性及其对实际价格的影响的证据很少。意大利最近从基于适应症的方法过渡到了混合价格模式。本研究旨在衡量新适应症的价格和报销谈判对折扣(即实际价格)和谈判持续时间的影响,谈判持续时间可作为其复杂性的代表:我们考虑了 2013 年 1 月至 2022 年 3 月期间通过欧洲集中程序批准的新适应症,这些适应症的价格和报销状况在 2015 年 1 月至 2022 年 3 月期间在意大利获得批准,共计 52 个新适应症。有关意大利价格和报销程序的时间框架及其各阶段的数据均来自公开渠道。通过比较出厂价和招标价,估算了首个适应症的折扣和新适应症的后续增长。为了计算 p 值,我们采用了曼-惠特尼检验法,并利用多元回归模型研究了谈判时间与药品特征之间的相关性:结果:报销的平均时间为 603 天,而首次上市的时间为 583 天。罕见病、癌症药物以及附加治疗价值较低的疗法的价格谈判时间更长。平均而言,额外折扣(在先前适应症折扣的基础上)为 13%,大大低于首次获批适应症的平均折扣(24.9%)。折扣增量较低,但如果最终协议附有《管理性进入协议》,则谈判时间更长。此外,这些年来折扣也在增加:结论:新适应症的谈判时间比第一个适应症的谈判时间更长,平均额外提供 13% 的折扣。虽然我们的研究结果有可能对政策产生重大影响,但由于观察数量有限,有必要对其进行审慎解释。在最近的谈判中,适用于所有适应症的额外折扣随着时间的推移呈上升趋势,这可能表明新适应症的价值呈下降趋势,以及从基于适应症的定价方法向混合模式的转变。否则,在最近的谈判中,对预算影响的考虑可能会超过基于价值的方法。如果是这样的话,恢复以价值为基础的方法有两种可能的选择,一是恢复以适应症为基础的定价方法,二是在混合模式中明确赋予价值更高的权重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
From Indication-Based Pricing to Blended Approach: Evidence on the Price and Reimbursement Negotiation in Italy.

Background: New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.

Methods: We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.

Results: The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.

Conclusion: The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Costs of Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with First-Line Treatment. Digital Versus Paper-Based Consent from the UK NHS Perspective: A Micro-costing Analysis. Correction: Cost-Effectiveness of Dupilumab and Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Singapore. Publisher Correction: Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers' Submissions and a Comparison Between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses. Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians.
×
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