IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v20y2011i6p688-698.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reimbursement and value‐based pricing: stratified cost‐effectiveness analysis may not be the last word

Author

Listed:
  • Neil Hawkins
  • David A. Scott

Abstract

During recent discussions, it has been argued that stratified cost‐effectiveness analysis has a key role in reimbursement decision‐making and value‐based pricing (VBP). It has previously been shown that when manufacturers are price‐takers, reimbursement decisions made in reference to stratified cost‐effectiveness analysis lead to a more efficient allocation of resources than decisions based on whole‐population cost‐effectiveness analysis. However, we demonstrate that when manufacturers are price setters, reimbursement or VBP based on stratified cost‐effectiveness analysis may not be optimal. Using two examples – one considering the choice of thrombolytic treatment for specific patient subgroups and the other considering the extension of coverage for a cancer treatment to include an additional indication – we show that combinations of extended coverage and reduced price can be identified that are advantageous to both payers and manufacturers. The benefits of a given extension in coverage and reduction in price depend both upon the average treatment benefit in the additional population and its size relative to the original population. Negotiation regarding trade‐offs between price and coverage may lead to improved outcomes both for health‐care systems and manufacturers compared with processes where coverage is determined conditional simply on stratified cost‐effectiveness at a given price. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:6:p:688-698
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1625
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1625?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. 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.
    2. Patricia M. Danzon & Jonathan D. Ketcham, 2004. "Reference Pricing of Pharmaceuticals for Medicare: Evidence from Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand," NBER Chapters, in: Frontiers in Health Policy Research, Volume 7, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180, March.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    5. Schneeweiss, Sebastian, 2007. "Reference drug programs: Effectiveness and policy implications," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 17-28, April.
    6. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    7. Garattini, Livio & Cornago, Dante & De Compadri, Paola, 2007. "Pricing and reimbursement of in-patent drugs in seven European countries: A comparative analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 330-339, August.
    8. Jack Dowie, 2004. "Why cost‐effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 453-459, May.
    9. Simeon Thornton, 2007. "Drug price reform in the UK: debunking the myths," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 981-992.
    10. 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.
    11. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. 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. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo Pertile, 2021. "A reply to “Who would benefit from average value‐based pricing?”," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2284-2286, September.
    3. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo Pertile, 2020. "Which valued‐based price when patients are heterogeneous?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(8), pages 923-935, August.
    4. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo Pertile, 2016. "Pricing policies when patients are heterogeneous: a welfare analysis," Working Papers 17/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    5. Daniel Gallacher & Nigel Stallard & Peter Kimani & Elvan Gökalp & Juergen Branke, 2022. "Development of a model to demonstrate the impact of National Institute of Health and Care Excellence cost‐effectiveness assessment on health utility for targeted medicines," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 417-430, February.

    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. Felix Achana & Stavros Petrou & Kamran Khan & Amadou Gaye & Neena Modi, 2018. "A methodological framework for assessing agreement between cost-effectiveness outcomes estimated using alternative sources of data on treatment costs and effects for trial-based economic evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 75-86, January.
    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. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    4. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    5. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    6. Håkonsen, Helle & Horn, Anne Marie & Toverud, Else-Lydia, 2009. "Price control as a strategy for pharmaceutical cost containment--What has been achieved in Norway in the period 1994-2004?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(2-3), pages 277-285, May.
    7. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    8. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    10. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    11. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    12. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    13. Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.
    14. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    15. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Bas Groot Koerkamp & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein, 2006. "Identifying key parameters in cost‐effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 383-392, April.
    19. Quang Dang Nguyen & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2022. "A general framework for optimising cost-effectiveness of pandemic response under partial intervention measures," Papers 2205.08996, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    20. Mullahy, John, 2018. "Individual results may vary: Inequality-probability bounds for some health-outcome treatment effects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 151-162.

    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:20:y:2011:i:6:p:688-698. 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.