IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p5523-d559324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Well Does a Sequential Minimal Optimization Model Perform in Predicting Medicine Prices for Procurement System?

Author

Listed:
  • Amarawan Pentrakan

    (Department of Healthcare Administration, Asia University, Taichung 41354, Taiwan
    Department of Pharmacy Administration, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90112, Thailand)

  • Cheng-Chia Yang

    (Department of Healthcare Administration, Asia University, Taichung 41354, Taiwan)

  • Wing-Keung Wong

    (Fintech Center, and Big Data Research Center, Department of Finance, Asia University, Taichung 41354, Taiwan
    Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40447, Taiwan
    Department of Economics and Finance, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, Hong Kong)

Abstract

The lack of an efficient approach in managing pharmaceutical prices in the procurement system led to a substantial burden on government budgets. In Thailand, although the reference price policy was implemented to contain the drug expenditure, there have been some challenges with the price dispersion of medicines and pricing information transparency. This phenomenon calls for the development of a potential algorithm to estimate appropriate prices for medical products. To serve this purpose, in this paper, we first developed the model by the sequential minimal optimization (SMO) algorithm for predicting the range of the prices for each medicine, using the Waikato environment for knowledge analysis software, and applying feature selection techniques also to examine improving predictive accuracy. We used the dataset comprised of 2424 records listed on the procurement system in Thailand from January to March 2019 in the application and used a 10-fold cross-validation test to validate the model. The results demonstrated that the model derived by the SMO algorithm with the gain ratio selection method provided good performance at an accuracy of approximately 92.62%, with high sensitivity and precision. Additionally, we found that the model can distinguish the differences in the prices of medicines in the pharmaceutical market by using eight major features—the segmented buyers, the generic product groups, trade product names, procurement methods, dosage forms, pack sizes, manufacturers, and total purchase budgets—that provided the highest predictive accuracy. Our findings are useful to health policymakers who could employ our proposed model in monitoring the situation of medicine prices and providing feedback directly to suggest the best possible price for hospital purchasing managers based on the feature inputs in their procurement system.

Suggested Citation

  • Amarawan Pentrakan & Cheng-Chia Yang & Wing-Keung Wong, 2021. "How Well Does a Sequential Minimal Optimization Model Perform in Predicting Medicine Prices for Procurement System?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5523-:d:559324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5523/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5523/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hye-Young Kwon & Brian Godman, 2017. "Drug Pricing in South Korea," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 447-453, August.
    2. Surachat Ngorsuraches & Kanokkan Chaiyakan, 2015. "Equitable Prices of Single-Source Drugs in Thailand," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 389-397, August.
    3. John J J Bernstein & Gerhard B Holt & Joseph Bernstein, 2019. "Price dispersion of generic medications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-7, November.
    4. Yu-Chiang Hu & Jake Ansell, 2009. "Retail default prediction by using sequential minimal optimization technique," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 651-666.
    5. Lei Chen & Ying Yang & Mi Luo & Borui Hu & Shicheng Yin & Zongfu Mao, 2020. "The Impacts of National Centralized Drug Procurement Policy on Drug Utilization and Drug Expenditures: The Case of Shenzhen, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-11, December.
    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. Wing-Keung Wong, 2022. "Editorial Statement and Research Ideas on Using Behavioral Models in Environmental Research and Public Health with Applications," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-3, June.
    2. Sumia Mumtaz & Amanda M. Y. Chu & Saman Attiq & Hassan Jalil Shah & Wing-Keung Wong, 2022. "Habit—Does It Matter? Bringing Habit and Emotion into the Development of Consumer’s Food Waste Reduction Behavior with the Lens of the Theory of Interpersonal Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-24, May.

    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. Lindo, Jason M. & Pineda-Torres, Mayra, 2021. "New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Qian Xing & Wenxi Tang & Mingyang Li & Shuailong Li, 2022. "Has the Volume-Based Drug Purchasing Approach Achieved Equilibrium among Various Stakeholders? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Fitzpatrick, Anne, 2023. "Which price is right? A comparison of three standard approaches to measuring prices," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    4. Yan Sun & Zheng Zhu & Jiawei Zhang & Peien Han & Yu Qi & Xiaoyang Wang & Li Yang, 2022. "Impacts of National Drug Price Negotiation on Expenditure, Volume, and Availability of Targeted Anti-Cancer Drugs in China: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-10, April.
    5. Li, Hui & Sun, Jie, 2012. "Forecasting business failure: The use of nearest-neighbour support vectors and correcting imbalanced samples – Evidence from the Chinese hotel industry," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 622-634.
    6. Shivam Gupta & Sachin Modgil & Samadrita Bhattacharyya & Indranil Bose, 2022. "Artificial intelligence for decision support systems in the field of operations research: review and future scope of research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 308(1), pages 215-274, January.
    7. Kwon, Hye-Young & Kim, Jinhyun, 2020. "Consistency of new drug pricing in Korea: Bridging variations among personnel in price negotiations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(9), pages 965-970.
    8. Neprash, Hannah T. & Zink, Anna & Sheridan, Bethany & Hempstead, Katherine, 2021. "The effect of Medicaid expansion on Medicaid participation, payer mix, and labor supply in primary care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    9. Yuanyuan Hu & Shouming Chen & Fangjun Qiu & Peien Chen & Shaoxiong Chen, 2021. "Will the Volume-Based Procurement Policy Promote Pharmaceutical Firms’ R&D Investment in China? An Event Study Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-21, November.
    10. Kwon, Hye-Young & Bae, Seungjin & Choi, Sang-eun & Park, Sylvia & Lee, Eui-Kyung & Park, Sungmin & Kim, Jinhyun, 2019. "Easy cuts, easy rebound: Drug expenditures with massive price cuts in Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(4), pages 388-392.
    11. Mingyue Zhao & Lingyi Zhang & Zhitong Feng & Yu Fang, 2021. "Physicians’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Generic Substitution in China: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.
    12. Hubert Barennes & Amphonexay Frichittavong & Marissa Gripenberg & Paulin Koffi, 2015. "Evidence of High Out of Pocket Spending for HIV Care Leading to Catastrophic Expenditure for Affected Patients in Lao People's Democratic Republic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5523-:d:559324. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.