IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v42y2024i1d10.1007_s40273-023-01320-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Tobias Michaeli

    (National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital
    University of Wuppertal)

  • Thomas Michaeli

    (University of Wuppertal
    University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University
    DKFZ-Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim
    German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ))

Abstract

Background Rising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients’ adherence and survival. Objective We aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with launch prices and post-launch price changes of injectable cancer drugs in the US from 2005 to 2023. Data and Methods All anticancer drugs with US FDA approval between 2000 and 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. The sample was then restricted to cancer drugs covered under Medicare Part B (injectable drugs). Data characterizing each drug’s clinical benefits, disease epidemiology, approved indications, competition, and price were obtained from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The association between launch/post-launch prices and collected variables was assessed in random-effects regressions. Results Of 170 cancer drugs with FDA approval between 2000 and 2022, we identified 66 (39%) injectable cancer drugs with quarterly price data from 2005 to 2023. In 2023, mean prices amounted to $27,688 per month, with an average price increase of 94% from 2005 to 2023. Launch and post-launch price changes were significantly associated with the treated disease epidemiology. A 1% decline in disease incidence was associated with a 0.2511% (p = 0.008) increase in launch prices and a 0.0086% (p = 0.032) annual increase in post-launch prices. Accordingly, launch prices were 120% (p = 0.051) higher for orphan than non-orphan drugs, with 3% (p = 0.008) greater annual post-launch price increases. Post-launch prices declined by up to −2% annually as new supplemental indications were approved for the same drug. We found no consistent association between launch/post-launch prices and the drugs’ clinical benefit in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response. The market entry of new competitors was not associated with price reductions. 28 of 33 drug pairs within the same class had positive correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were high (>0.80) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, CD38 antibodies, CD20 antibodies, HER2 antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors. Conclusions Cancer drug prices regularly increase faster than inflation; however, there is no evidence that launch prices and post-launch price changes are aligned with the clinical benefit a drug offers to patients. In particular, patients with rare diseases experience greater price increases for their orphan drugs. There is no evidence that brand-brand competition results in drug price reductions.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Tobias Michaeli & Thomas Michaeli, 2024. "Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 117-131, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01320-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01320-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-023-01320-4
    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/s40273-023-01320-4?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. Stigler, George J & Sherwin, Robert A, 1985. "The Extent of the Market," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(3), pages 555-585, October.
      • Stigler, George J. & Sherwin, Robert A., 1983. "The Extent of the Market," Working Papers 31, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    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. Gual, Jordi, 2003. "Market Definition in the Telecoms Industry," CEPR Discussion Papers 3988, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Frank Asche, 2001. "Testing the effect of an anti-dumping duty: The US salmon market," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 343-355.
    3. Böckers, Veit & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2014. "The extent of European power markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-111.
    4. Monika Roman, 2020. "Spatial Integration of the Milk Market in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Holmes, Mark J. & Otero, Jesús & Panagiotidis, Theodore, 2013. "On the dynamics of gasoline market integration in the United States: Evidence from a pair-wise approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 503-510.
    6. Arthur De Vany & W. David Walls, 1994. "Open Access And The Emergence Of A Competitive Natural Gas Market," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 12(2), pages 77-96, April.
    7. Asche, Frank & Gjolberg, Ole & Volker, Teresa, 2003. "Price relationships in the petroleum market: an analysis of crude oil and refined product prices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 289-301, May.
    8. García-Hiernaux, Alfredo & Guerrero, David E. & McAleer, Michael, 2016. "Market integration dynamics and asymptotic price convergence in distribution," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 913-925.
    9. Geroski, P. A., 1998. "Thinking creatively about markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 677-695, November.
    10. Korbinian von Blanckenburg & Marc Hanfeld & Konstantin A. Kholodilin, 2013. "A Market Screening Model for Price Inconstancies: Empirical Evidence from German Electricity Markets," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1274, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Guthrie, Graeme & Videbeck, Steen, 2007. "Electricity spot price dynamics: Beyond financial models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5614-5621, November.
    12. Blum, Ulrich & Veltins, Michael A., 2005. "Die Identifikation des „Wirtschaftlichen Vorteils“ in Kartellverfahren," IWH Discussion Papers 1/2005, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    13. De Vany, A. & Walls, W.D., 1994. "The Law of One Price in a Network: Arbitrage and Price Dynamics in Natural Gas City Gate Markets," Papers 93-94-17, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
    14. repec:vuw:vuwscr:18961 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Giulietti, Monica & Iregui, Ana María & Otero, Jesús, 2015. "A pair-wise analysis of the law of one price: Evidence from the crude oil market," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 39-41.
    16. John Cuddington & Zhongmin Wang, 2006. "Assessing the Degree of Spot Market Integration for U.S. Natural Gas: Evidence from Daily Price Data," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 195-210, March.
    17. Olivier Massol & Albert Banal-Estañol, 2014. "Market power across the Channel: Are Continental European gas markets isolated ?," Working Papers hal-02475017, HAL.
    18. Babatunde O. Abidoye & Marlene Labuschagne, 2014. "The transmission of world maize price to South African maize market: a threshold cointegration approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 501-512, July.
    19. Asche, Frank & Osmundsen, Petter & Tveteras, Ragnar, 2002. "European market integration for gas? Volume flexibility and political risk," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 249-265, May.
    20. Mario Forni, 2004. "Using Stationarity Tests in Antitrust Market Definition," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 6(2), pages 441-464.
    21. Michael Atingi-Ego & Jacob Opolot & Anna Santa Drale, 2006. "Can the Benefits of Developed Country Agricultural Trade Reforms Trickle Down to the Rural Agricultural Households in Least Developed Countries: Analysis via Price Transmission in Selected Agricultura," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp159, IIIS.

    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:42:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01320-4. 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.