IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals


  • Cole, A.
  • Towse, A.
  • Lorgelly, P.
  • Sullivan, R.


The current system of a single price per medicine means that, for multi-indication medicines, the relationship between price and "value" can vary substantially. In this OHE Research paper, we consider - What are the economic implications of an alternative to single-price payments for pharmaceuticals? In particular, what are the implications for - payer budgets, patient access, and the incentives for innovation? Varying prices with the use of a drug offers the opportunity to better align payment with value, but the impact on patients, payers, and incentives for innovation are not clear cut. Two key papers offer competing perspectives. Bach (2014) described the potential for IBP to increase transparency and illustrated how IBP could lead to lower prices for lower value indications, while Chandra and Garthwaite (2017) argued that IBP would lead to higher prices overall. The key differences arose from assumptions as to where (single) prices are currently set, and the extent to which IBP could expand patient access by allowing further indications to be developed. In the short term theory suggests that indication-based pricing can improve overall welfare if it means greater patient access, but payers may face higher expenditure. However, the potential longer-term (dynamic) effects of IBP are sometimes neglected - optimising incentives for R&D means indications that can provide cost-effective treatment are likely to be developed, and there is the potential for increased price competition at the indication-level, which could lead to lower prices, so delivering better value to the health system. In order to explore the potential impact of competition, we identify two classes of cancer therapy - tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and show how competing products and competing indications have developed over time. In the case of the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors additional indications are currently in development with more competing therapies expected to enter the market for several further cancer types. We illustrate how competition by indication in the PD-1/PD-L1 space could, in theory, reduce prices below the value-based price. Erratum - 25/07/2018 - Please note that this copy of the report (originally published 09/07/2018) has been updated to correct an error in Table 1 (p.9), whereby the results in columns 7 to 9 were in reverse.

Suggested Citation

  • Cole, A. & Towse, A. & Lorgelly, P. & Sullivan, R., 2018. "Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals," Research Papers 002030, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:respap:002030

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Towse, A. & Cole, A. & Zamora, B., 2018. "The Debate on Indication-Based Pricing in the U.S. and Five Major European Countries," Consulting Reports 002009, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Rejon-Parrilla, J.C & Hernandez-Villafuerte, K. & Shah, K. & Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. & Garrison, L. & Towse, A., 2014. "The Expanding Value Footprint of Oncology Treatments," Consulting Reports 000050, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Neri, M. & Towse, A. & Garau, M., 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing (MIP): Practical Solutions and Steps to Move Forward," Briefings 002084, Office of Health Economics.
    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.

    More about this item


    Economics of Innovation; Value; Affordability; and Decision Making;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ohe:respap:002030. 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: (Publications Manager). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.