IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v7y2023i3d10.1007_s41669-023-00393-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evaluation of Drug Innovativeness in Italy: Key Determinants and Internal Consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Claudio Jommi

    (Università del Piemonte Orientale
    Bocconi University)

  • Carlotta Galeone

    (Statinfo
    Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca)

Abstract

Background Innovative medicines are provided with dedicated funds and immediate market access in Italy. Innovativeness evaluation considers unmet need, added therapeutic value, and quality of the evidence. Objective We aimed to evaluate the internal consistency and drivers of the innovativeness appraisal process. Methods Appraisal reports on innovativeness refer to 1997–2021. We used both a descriptive approach and probabilistic multivariate analysis, using logistic regression models to compute odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. The dependent variable is innovativeness status (innovative vs. non-innovative; full innovativeness vs. conditional innovativeness). Explanatory variables, besides the three above-mentioned domains, are the year of evaluation, drug type, target disease and population, and the number and type of available studies. Results Among the 141 medicines scrutinized, 31.9%, 29.8%, and 38.3% were evaluated as fully innovative, conditionally innovative, and non-innovative, respectively. Added therapeutic value and the quality of the evidence were associated with the odds of receiving innovative status, and full compared with conditional innovativeness; unmet need was not a predictive variable. Other factors played a minor role: medicines for both solid tumours and rare diseases are more likely to be judged innovative; conditional innovativeness is more probable for medicines for rare diseases. Conclusions Innovativeness status is driven by the added therapeutic value and quality of evidence. The appraisal process is internally consistent and predictable. This provides industry with a clear indication of what is needed to ensure that access to their medicines is prioritized.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudio Jommi & Carlotta Galeone, 2023. "The Evaluation of Drug Innovativeness in Italy: Key Determinants and Internal Consistency," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 373-381, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00393-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00393-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00393-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00393-3?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jommi, Claudio & Costa, Enrico & Michelon, Alessandra & Pisacane, Maria & Scroccaro, Giovanna, 2013. "Multi-tier drugs assessment in a decentralised health care system. The Italian case-study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 241-247.
    2. Villa, Federico & Tutone, Michaela & Altamura, Gianluca & Antignani, Sara & Cangini, Agnese & Fortino, Ida & Melazzini, Mario & Trotta, Francesco & Tafuri, Giovanni & Jommi, Claudio, 2019. "Determinants of price negotiations for new drugs. The experience of the Italian Medicines Agency," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(6), pages 595-600.
    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. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    2. A. Carletto & A. Cicchetti & S. Coretti & V. Moramarco & M. Ruggeri, 2019. "Money back guarantee? A cost–benefit framework of performance-based agreements (PBAs) for the reimbursement of pharmaceuticals," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(1), pages 89-101, March.
    3. Sabine Vogler & Katharina Habimana & Manuel Alexander Haasis & Stefan Fischer, 2024. "Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 629-652, September.
    4. Callea, Giuditta & Armeni, Patrizio & Marsilio, Marta & Jommi, Claudio & Tarricone, Rosanna, 2017. "The impact of HTA and procurement practices on the selection and prices of medical devices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 89-95.
    5. Patrizio Armeni & Claudio Jommi & Monica Otto, 2016. "The simultaneous effects of pharmaceutical policies from payers’ and patients’ perspectives: Italy as a case study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 963-977, November.
    6. Laura Grassi & Simone Fantaccini, 2022. "An overview of Fintech applications to solve the puzzle of health care funding: state-of-the-art in medical crowdfunding," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, December.
    7. Longo, Francesco, 2016. "Lessons from the Italian NHS retrenchment policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 306-315.
    8. Kjellberg, Hans & Sjögren, Ebba & Krafve, Linus Johansson, 2023. "The functions of known to be inaccurate prices in markets: A cross-country comparison of pharmaceutical list pricing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Viviane Cássia Pereira & Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto & Francisco Assis da Rocha Neves, 2019. "Health technology reassessment in the Brazilian public health system: Analysis of the current status," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.

    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:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00393-3. 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.