IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i7d10.1007_s40273-022-01161-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prices and Clinical Benefit of National Price-Negotiated Anticancer Medicines in China

Author

Listed:
  • Yichen Zhang

    (Peking University)

  • Yuxuan Wei

    (Peking University
    Fudan University)

  • Huangqianyu Li

    (Peking University)

  • Yixuan Chen

    (Peking University)

  • Yiran Guo

    (Peking University)

  • Sheng Han

    (Peking University)

  • Luwen Shi

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

  • Xiaodong Guan

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

Abstract

Background High prices of anticancer medicines have increased the economic burden for both patients and health insurance systems. Since 2017, China has implemented national price negotiations for medicines, relying on evidence from health technology assessments. We aim to assess the relation between negotiated price and value of anticancer medicines listed in China’s National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). Methods For all price-negotiated anticancer medicines and corresponding indications listed in the latest NRDL between 2017 and 2020, we collected their clinical outcomes data, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), in supporting trials. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the association between the daily cost and clinical benefit of each indication. Results In total, 75 indications of 46 branded anticancer medicines were included for analysis. The median daily costs for the anticancer therapies that had gone through negotiation in 2017–2020 were US$87.6, US$71.8, US$58.9, and US$39.7, respectively. For indications supported by randomized trials, no correlation between daily costs and OS and PFS benefit of the price-negotiated cancer therapies was observed (N = 41, r = −0.05, and N = 49, r = 0.04, respectively). For cancer indications newly listed in NRDL in 2020, the association between their daily cost and OS benefit was −0.78 (N = 4, p = 0.221) and 0.01 (N = 8, p = 0.986) before and after the price negotiation. Conclusion Though the negotiation policy decreased prices of anticancer medicines in China, no statistically significant correlation was observed between their daily costs and clinical benefits. A more transparent and credible pricing approach needs to be established to promote value-based anticancer medicines and healthcare system efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Yichen Zhang & Yuxuan Wei & Huangqianyu Li & Yixuan Chen & Yiran Guo & Sheng Han & Luwen Shi & Xiaodong Guan, 2022. "Prices and Clinical Benefit of National Price-Negotiated Anticancer Medicines in China," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(7), pages 715-724, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01161-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01161-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01161-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01161-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Federico Augustovski & Esther Bekker-Grob & Andrew H. Briggs & Chris Carswell & Lisa Caulley & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Dan Greenberg & Elizabeth Loder & Josephine Ma, 2022. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 213-221, March.
    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. Chia-Chin Li & Ying-Chun Lin & Ji-An Liang & K. S. Clifford Chao & Te-Chun Hsia & Chun-Ru Chien, 2023. "Health Economic Evaluation of Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-10, March.
    2. Siwaporn Niyomsri & Mantiwee Nimworapan & Wanwarang Wongcharoen & Piyameth Dilokthornsakul, 2023. "Economic Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Ghislaine van Mastrigt & Caroline van Heugten & Anne Visser-Meily & Leonarda Bremmers & Silvia Evers, 2022. "Estimating the Burden of Stroke: Two-Year Societal Costs and Generic Health-Related Quality of Life of the Restore4Stroke Cohort," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, September.
    4. de Melo Santos, Carlos Jefferson & Sant’Anna, Angelo Marcio Oliveira, 2024. "Evaluation of the public policy impacts on Monkeypox in Brazil," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Susanne Mayer & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2022. "Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01161-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.