IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v41y2023i1d10.1007_s40273-022-01215-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Role of Economic Evaluations on Pricing of Medicines Reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service

Author

Listed:
  • Pierluigi Russo

    (Italian Medicines Agency)

  • Matteo Zanuzzi

    (Italian Medicines Agency)

  • Angelica Carletto

    (Italian Medicines Agency)

  • Annalisa Sammarco

    (Italian Medicines Agency)

  • Federica Romano

    (Italian Medicines Agency)

  • Andrea Manca

    (University of York)

Abstract

Objective The main objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), alongside other factors, predicts the final outcome of medicine price negotiation in Italy. The second objective was to depict the mean ICER of medicines obtained after negotiation. Methods Data were extracted from company dossiers submitted to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) from October 2016 to January 2021 and AIFA’s internal database. Beta-based regression analyses were used to test the effect of ICER and other variables on the outcome of price negotiation (ΔP), defined as the percentage difference between the list price requested by manufacturers and the final price paid by the Italian National Health Service (INHS). Results In our dataset of 48 pricing and reimbursement procedures, the ICER before negotiation was one of the variables with a major impact on the outcome of negotiation when ≥ 40,000€/QALY. As resulting from multiple regression analyses, the effect of the ICER on ΔP seemed driven by medicines for non-onco-immunological and non-rare diseases. Overall, the negotiation process granted mean incremental costs of €64,688 and mean incremental QALYs of 1.96, yielding an average ICER of €33,004/QALY. Conclusions This study provides support on the influence of cost-effectiveness analysis on price negotiation in the Italian context, providing an estimate of the mean ICER of reimbursed medicines, calculated using net confidential prices charged by the INHS. The role and use of economic evaluations in medicines pricing should be further improved to get the best value for money.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierluigi Russo & Matteo Zanuzzi & Angelica Carletto & Annalisa Sammarco & Federica Romano & Andrea Manca, 2023. "Role of Economic Evaluations on Pricing of Medicines Reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 107-117, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01215-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01215-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01215-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/s40273-022-01215-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. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    2. Martin Wenzl & Suzannah Chapman, 2019. "Performance-based managed entry agreements for new medicines in OECD countries and EU member states: How they work and possible improvements going forward," OECD Health Working Papers 115, OECD Publishing.
    3. Valérie Paris & Annalisa Belloni, 2013. "Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing," OECD Health Working Papers 63, OECD Publishing.
    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. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    2. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    3. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    4. William C. N. Dunlop & C. Daniel Mullins & Olaf Pirk & Ron Goeree & Maarten J. Postma & Ashley Enstone & Louise Heron, 2016. "BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 1051-1065, October.
    5. Sun-Hong Kwon & Hea-Sun Park & Young-Jin Na & Chul Park & Ju-Young Shin & Hye-Lin Kim, 2021. "Price Reduction of Anticancer Drugs from 2007 to 2019 in South Korea: The Impact of Pharmaceutical Cost-Containment Policies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 439-450, May.
    6. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    7. Vogler, Sabine & Zimmermann, Nina & de Joncheere, Kees, 2016. "Policy interventions related to medicines: Survey of measures taken in European countries during 2010–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1363-1377.
    8. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2022. "When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    10. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    11. Russo, Pierluigi & Carletto, Angelica & Németh, Gergely & Habl, Claudia, 2021. "Medicine price transparency and confidential managed-entry agreements in Europe: findings from the EURIPID survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1140-1145.
    12. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    13. Afschin Gandjour, 2016. "Limiting Free Pricing of New Innovative Drugs After Launch: A Necessity for Payers?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 507-509, October.
    14. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Bertling, Annika & Mossialos, Elias, 2016. "A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1104-1114.
    16. Natalie Bohm & Sarah Bermingham & Frank Grimsey Jones & Daniela C. Gonçalves-Bradley & Alex Diamantopoulos & Jessica R. Burton & Hamish Laing, 2022. "The Challenges of Outcomes-Based Contract Implementation for Medicines in Europe," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 13-29, January.
    17. Anna Hobbins & Luke Barry & Dan Kelleher & Koonal Shah & Nancy Devlin & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Ciaran O’Neill, 2018. "Utility Values for Health States in Ireland: A Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1345-1353, November.
    18. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    19. David Epstein & Leticia García-Mochón & Stephen Kaptoge & Simon G. Thompson, 2016. "Modeling the costs and long-term health benefits of screening the general population for risks of cardiovascular disease: a review of methods used in the literature," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 1041-1053, November.
    20. Dominik J. Wettstein & Stefan Boes, 2020. "The impact of reimbursement negotiations on cost and availability of new pharmaceuticals: evidence from an online experiment," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, 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:41:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01215-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.