IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v16y2007i10p981-992.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drug price reform in the UK: debunking the myths

Author

Listed:
  • Simeon Thornton

Abstract

The OFT report into the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) called for reform of the scheme, replacing existing profit and price controls with a system of value‐based pricing (VBP). The report argued that VBP would be much more effective than the current PPRS both at providing value for money for the NHS and giving pharmaceutical companies the right incentives to invest in drugs in the future. The report has sparked a widespread debate about drug pricing in the UK and has been controversial in some quarters. Some of the more negative responses are, however, based on fundamental misconceptions about the OFT recommendations. In particular, contrary to some claims, the recommended system would provide strong incentives for incremental innovation and the right balance of rewards for first in class and follow‐on products. Nor, as is sometimes argued, would VBP have an adverse effect on investment in the UK. Certainly, real challenges lie ahead if VBP is to be implemented. These concern the definition of value, particularly where patient benefits differ significantly by subgroup or indication, and the level of resource required to implement VBP. The OFT report contains proposals for addressing each of these areas. Perhaps the most difficult challenge is the political one: securing acceptance for a reform package that would create winners and losers among pharmaceutical companies according to their success in producing valuable drugs. Ultimately, however, only a scheme that does precisely this can hope to meet the needs of patients, the NHS and innovative companies in the long run. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Simeon Thornton, 2007. "Drug price reform in the UK: debunking the myths," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 981-992, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:10:p:981-992
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1300
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1300?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. Karl Claxton, 2007. "Oft, Vbp: Qed?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 545-558, June.
    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. Neil Hawkins & David A. Scott, 2011. "Reimbursement and value‐based pricing: stratified cost‐effectiveness analysis may not be the last word," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(6), pages 688-698, June.
    2. Pedro Pita Barros, 2011. "The simple economics of risk‐sharing agreements between the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 461-470, April.
    3. Trevor Jozef Piatkiewicz & Janine Marie Traulsen & Tove Holm-Larsen, 2018. "Risk-Sharing Agreements in the EU: A Systematic Review of Major Trends," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 109-123, June.

    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. 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).
    2. Levaggi, Rosella, 2014. "Pricing schemes for new drugs: A welfare analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 69-73.
    3. Gregory S. Zaric, 2008. "Optimal drug pricing, limited use conditions and stratified net benefits for Markov models of disease progression," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(11), pages 1277-1294, November.
    4. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2019. "Is rate of return pricing a useful approach when value-based pricing is not appropriate?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 945-948, September.
    5. Katherine Payne, 2009. "Fish and chips all round? Regulation of DNA‐based genetic diagnostics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1233-1236, November.
    6. Nadia Benomar & Joanne Castonguay & Marie-Hélène Jobin & François Lespérance, 2017. "Politiques favorables à l’innovation en santé," CIRANO Project Reports 2017rp-02, CIRANO.
    7. Ulf Persson & Johanna Svensson & Billie Pettersson, 2012. "A New Reimbursement System for Innovative Pharmaceuticals Combining Value-Based and Free Market Pricing," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 217-225, July.
    8. Ulf Persson & Michael Willis & Knut Ödegaard, 2010. "A case study of ex ante, value-based price and reimbursement decision-making: TLV and rimonabant in Sweden," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 195-203, April.
    9. Pedro Pita Barros, 2011. "The simple economics of risk‐sharing agreements between the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 461-470, April.
    10. Gandjour, Afschin & Chernyak, Nadja, 2011. "A new prize system for drug innovation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 170-177.
    11. Omer Ben-Aharon & Oren Shavit & Racheli Magnezi, 2017. "Does drug price-regulation affect healthcare expenditures?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(7), pages 859-867, September.
    12. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo Pertile, 2016. "Pricing policies when patients are heterogeneous: a welfare analysis," Working Papers 17/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    13. Adrian Towse, 2007. "If it ain't broke, don't price fix it: the OFT and the PPRS," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 653-665, July.
    14. Rick A Vreman & Thomas F Broekhoff & Hubert GM Leufkens & Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G Goettsch, 2020. "Application of Managed Entry Agreements for Innovative Therapies in Different Settings and Combinations: A Feasibility Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:10:p:981-992. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.