IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p4105-d783354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value-Based Pricing and Budget Impact Analysis for Multi-Indication Drugs: A Case Study of Immunotherapies

Author

Listed:
  • So-Young Ha

    (School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Dong-Won Kang

    (School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Hye-In Jung

    (School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea)

  • Eui-Kyung Lee

    (School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea)

  • Mi-Hai Park

    (School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea)

Abstract

We aimed to calculate the value-based price of each indication and compare the drug price and budget impact among value-based pricing (VBP) scenarios, using immunotherapy as a case. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab prices were estimated for VBP scenarios, namely indication value-based pricing (IBP), IBP with refund, and weighted-average pricing (WAP). To estimate the value-based price of each indication, cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted by setting the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the first reimbursed indication to the threshold. The budget impact for each scenario was compared with that of the pricing system in Korea (which has a 4.75% price reduction). The value-based prices of non-reimbursed indications were lower for atezolizumab and higher for nivolumab than those for the reimbursed indication. The drug price fluctuations were the largest in IBP, varying between 28.56–328.81% of the current list price. The net price of the non-reimbursed indications decreased from 0% to 71.44% in IBP with refund, and the budget impact was the lowest among VBPs. Although the fluctuation in the budget impact in WAP was smaller than IBP, higher drug prices were identified for low-value indications. In conclusion, IBP with refund is a viable method for multi-indication drugs, because it has minimal drug price and budget impact changes.

Suggested Citation

  • So-Young Ha & Dong-Won Kang & Hye-In Jung & Eui-Kyung Lee & Mi-Hai Park, 2022. "Value-Based Pricing and Budget Impact Analysis for Multi-Indication Drugs: A Case Study of Immunotherapies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-10, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4105-:d:783354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4105/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4105/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yinghui Wei & Patrick Royston, 2017. "Reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan–Meier curves," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 17(4), pages 786-802, December.
    2. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Néboa Zozaya & Bleric Alcalá & Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega, 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1407-1420, December.
    3. Helen O’Donnell & Laura McCullagh & Michael Barry & Cathal Walsh, 2020. "The Interaction between Price Negotiations and Heterogeneity: Implications for Economic Evaluations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 144-155, February.
    4. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo Pertile, 2020. "Value-Based Pricing Alternatives for Personalised Drugs: Implications of Asymmetric Information and Competition," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 357-362, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edin Basic & Mathias Kappel & Arpit Misra & Leopold Sellner & Boris A. Ratsch & Dennis A. Ostwald, 2020. "Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous therapy regimens for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1351-1361, December.
    2. Joan Costa‐Font & Rosella Levaggi, 2020. "Innovation, aging, and health care: Unraveling “silver” from “red” herrings?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 3-7, October.
    3. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo Pertile, 2021. "A reply to “Who would benefit from average value‐based pricing?”," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2284-2286, September.
    4. Lorna Wheaton & Anastasios Papanikos & Anne Thomas & Sylwia Bujkiewicz, 2023. "Using Bayesian Evidence Synthesis Methods to Incorporate Real-World Evidence in Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 539-552, July.
    5. Juan Llano & Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Jaime Espin & Jordi Gol-Montserrat & Alicia Llano & Carlos Bringas, 2022. "Public health policies for the common interest: rethinking EU states’ incentives strategies when a pandemic reshuffles all interests," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 329-335, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4105-:d:783354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.