University of Southern California.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2018 Feb 1;43(1):5-18. doi: 10.1215/03616878-4249796.
In recent years, drug manufacturers and private payers have expressed interest in novel pricing models that more closely link a drug's price to its value. Indication-based pricing, outcome-based pricing, drug licenses, and drug mortgages have all been discussed as alternatives to paying strictly for volume. Manufacturers and payers have complained, however, that Medicaid's "best-price rule" inhibits their ability to enter into these new pricing arrangements. This article examines the best-price rule and assesses to what extent, if any, it might frustrate the goal of paying for value. We conclude that the best-price rule is not as serious a problem as it is sometimes made out to be but that it is also not simply a convenient excuse for refusing to try something new. The law here is complex, and moving to a pay-for-value model for drugs will require close coordination among manufacturers, payers, and regulators.
近年来,药品制造商和私人支付方对将药品价格与其价值更紧密联系的新型定价模式表示了兴趣。基于适应证的定价、基于结果的定价、药品许可证和药品抵押贷款都被讨论作为替代严格按数量付费的方法。然而,制造商和支付方抱怨说,医疗补助计划的“最优价格规则”限制了他们达成这些新定价安排的能力。本文探讨了最优价格规则,并评估了它在多大程度上可能阻碍支付价值的目标。我们的结论是,最优价格规则并不是像有时所说的那样严重的问题,但它也不是简单地拒绝尝试新事物的一个方便借口。这里的法律很复杂,要为药品建立一个按价值付费的模式,制造商、支付方和监管方需要密切协调。