IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v258y2020ics0277953620302616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US

Author

Listed:
  • Salas-Vega, Sebastian
  • Shearer, Emily
  • Mossialos, Elias

Abstract

As cancer drug prices rise, it remains unclear whether the cost of new interventions is related to their beneficial impact for patients at a societal-level. Using data for 2003–2015 from the IQVIA MIDAS® dataset, the relationship between cancer drug costs and drug clinical benefits was studied in four countries with different approaches to drug pricing. Summary measures of drug clinical effects on overall survival, quality of life, and safety were obtained from a review of health technology assessments. Mean total drug costs for a full course of treatment were estimated using standard posology for each medicine and in each country. Regression analysis was used to test whether, at a societal-level, the cost of recently licensed drugs is related to their beneficial impact for patients. Across all eligible medicines, average treatment costs were lowest in France and Australia and highest in the UK and US. Compared with Australia, France, and the UK, cancer medicines were on average between 1.2 and 1.9 times more expensive in the US, where the average total per patient cost for treatment was $68,255.17. Costs for new cancer medicines are high and, at best, only weakly associated with drug clinical benefits. The strength of this relationship nevertheless varied across countries. Some new cancer drugs—particularly in the US—may be neither affordable nor clinically beneficial over existing treatments. While all countries can benefit from strategies that more robustly align price with therapeutic benefit in cancer drugs, the US stands out in its opportunity to improve both affordability and value in cancer drug treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:258:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620302616
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620302616
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113042?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. David H. Howard & Peter B. Bach & Ernst R. Berndt & Rena M. Conti, 2015. "Pricing in the Market for Anticancer Drugs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 139-162, Winter.
    2. Swathi Iyengar & Kiu Tay-Teo & Sabine Vogler & Peter Beyer & Stefan Wiktor & Kees de Joncheere & Suzanne Hill, 2016. "Prices, Costs, and Affordability of New Medicines for Hepatitis C in 30 Countries: An Economic Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, May.
    3. T. Joseph Mattingly & Joseph F. Levy & Julia F. Slejko & Nneka C. Onwudiwe & Eleanor M. Perfetto, 2018. "Estimating Drug Costs: How do Manufacturer Net Prices Compare with Other Common US Price References?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1093-1099, September.
    4. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    5. Margaret Kyle, 2018. "Are Important Innovations Rewarded? Evidence from Pharmaceutical Markets," Post-Print hal-01952663, HAL.
    6. Giuseppe Carone & Christoph Schwierz & Ana Xavier, 2012. "Cost-containment policies in public pharmaceutical spending in the EU," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 461, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    7. Productivity Commission, 2001. "International pharmaceutical price differences," Others 0107004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Karl Claxton, 2007. "Oft, Vbp: Qed?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 545-558, June.
    9. Wellman-Labadie, Olivier & Zhou, Youwen, 2010. "The US Orphan Drug Act: Rare disease research stimulator or commercial opportunity?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 216-228, May.
    10. Margaret K. Kyle, 2018. "Are Important Innovations Rewarded? Evidence from Pharmaceutical Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(1), pages 211-234, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Anderson, Michael & Drummond, Michael & Taylor, David & McGuire, Alistair & Carter, Paul & Mossialos, Elias, 2022. "Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 224-233.
    2. Levaggi, Laura & Levaggi, Rosella, 2024. "Competition, value-based prices and incentives to research personalised drugs," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    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. Sabine Vogler & Valérie Paris & Alessandra Ferrario & Veronika J. Wirtz & Kees Joncheere & Peter Schneider & Hanne Bak Pedersen & Guillaume Dedet & Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar, 2017. "How Can Pricing and Reimbursement Policies Improve Affordable Access to Medicines? Lessons Learned from European Countries," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 307-321, June.
    2. Sabine Vogler, 2019. "Fair prices for medicines? Exploring competent authorities’ and public payers’ preferences on pharmaceutical policies," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 46(3), pages 443-469, August.
    3. Levaggi, Rosella, 2014. "Pricing schemes for new drugs: A welfare analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 69-73.
    4. Margaret K. Kyle, 2019. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, pages 95-123, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Kyle, Margaret K., 2022. "Incentives for pharmaceutical innovation: What’s working, what’s lacking," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. Daniela Moye-Holz & S. Vogler, 2022. "Comparison of Prices and Affordability of Cancer Medicines in 16 Countries in Europe and Latin America," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 67-77, January.
    7. Rakesh Aggarwal & Qiushi Chen & Amit Goel & Nicole Seguy & Razia Pendse & Turgay Ayer & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment using generic direct-acting antivirals available in India," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2024. "Aversion to health inequality — Pure, income-related and income-caused," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    9. Birg, Laura, 2019. "Parallel imports and manufacturer rebates: Evidence from Germany," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 363, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    10. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    11. Adler, Matthew D. & Ferranna, Maddalena & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2021. "Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    12. Gianluca Baio & Laura Magazzini & Antonio Nicita & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2003. "Il Decreto DL 15/04/2002, n. 63 sul Contenimento della Spesa Farmaceutica - Impatto sull'Industria e Distorsioni nel Funzionamento del Mercato," Working Papers CERM 0-2003, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    13. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Werner B. F. Brouwer & Frans F. H. Rutten, 2010. "The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation: will it help German policy making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1128-1131, October.
    15. Dubois, Pierre & Magnac, Thierry, 2024. "Optimal intertemporal curative drug expenses: The case of hepatitis C in France," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Edouard Debonneuil & Anne Eyraud-Loisel & Frédéric Planchet, 2018. "Can Pension Funds Partially Manage Longevity Risk by Investing in a Longevity Megafund?," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-27, July.
    17. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    19. Kvamme, Maria Knoph & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Olsen, Jan Abel & Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø, 2010. "Increasing marginal utility of small increases in life-expectancy?: Results from a population survey," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 541-548, July.
    20. Aris Angelis & Huseyin Naci & Allan Hackshaw, 2020. "Recalibrating Health Technology Assessment Methods for Cell and Gene Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(12), pages 1297-1308, December.

    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:eee:socmed:v:258:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620302616. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.