Reference-Based Pricing Schemes: Effect on Pharmaceutical Expenditure, Resource Utilisation and Health Outcomes
Pharmaceutical expenditure is rising more rapidly than the general inflation rate in most advanced countries. One strategy that has been introduced to control pharmaceutical costs is reference-based pricing (RBP). Its potential is restricted to those specific segments of the drug market where several drugs (and/or their generic forms) exist without substantial evidence that any particular agent is superior. Three broad approaches have been adopted. These involve the aggregation of drugs into generic groups, related drug groups (e.g. ACE inhibitors) or drugs grouped by therapeutic indication (e.g. antihypertensives). For each drug group, a single reimbursement level or reference price is set. Drugs above the reference price require part or total payment by the patient. The experience with RBP ranges from over 10 years in Germany (involving all levels of RBP) to the more recent implementation of RBP for related drug groups in Australia. This review summarises the current state of knowledge on RBP from the published experiences in the countries where RBP has been adopted. The published systematic reviews of RBP from the countries that have implemented it suggest that RBP has been successful at temporarily capping drug prices for the RBP drug groups and achieving short term cost savings. However, other factors influencing total pharmaceutical expenditure have often occurred simultaneously and make it difficult to isolate specific effects of RBP. Further investigation is required before any valid conclusions can be drawn about the net effect of RBP on healthcare costs. RBP has withstood the initial legal challenges of pharmaceutical companies and the criticisms of some clinicians. Where the reference price is based on the lowest priced drug(s) in the group, RBP appears to be one of the few strategies likely to be effective at encouraging doctors to use the least expensive agents as first-line therapy and utilise more expensive agents in those who experience side effects or poor efficacy.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:20:y:2002:i:9:p:577-591. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.