IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i5d10.1007_s40258-022-00737-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Tobias Michaeli

    (University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University
    University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University
    London School of Economics and Political Science)

  • Mackenzie Mills

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

  • Panos Kanavos

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

Abstract

Purpose Oncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Methods Twenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions. Results First approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05–3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02–1.63, p

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Tobias Michaeli & Mackenzie Mills & Panos Kanavos, 2022. "Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 757-768, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00737-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00737-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-022-00737-w
    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/s40258-022-00737-w?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. Daniel Tobias Michaeli & Hasan Basri Yagmur & Timur Achmadeev & Thomas Michaeli, 2022. "Value drivers of development stage biopharma companies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1287-1296, November.
    2. Margherita Neri;Adrian Towse;Martina Garau, 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing (MIP): Practical Solutions and Steps to Move Forward," Briefing 002084, Office of Health Economics.
    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. Michaeli, Daniel Tobias & Mills, Mackenzie & Kanavos, Panos, 2022. "Value and price of multi-indication cancer drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115720, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Carlos Campillo-Artero & Jaume Puig-Junoy & José Luis Segú-Tolsa & Marta Trapero-Bertran, 2020. "Price Models for Multi-indication Drugs: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 47-56, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Varshney, Mayank & Jain, Amit, 2023. "Technology acquisition following inventor exit in the biopharmaceutical industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    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:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00737-w. 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.