Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Eur J Health Econ. 2021 Jun;22(4):559-569. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01274-4. Epub 2021 Mar 16.
Pharmaceuticals are priced uniformly by convention, but vary in their degree of effectiveness for different disease indications. As more high-cost therapies have launched, the demand for alternative payment models (APMs) has been increasing in many advanced markets, despite their well-documented limitations and challenges to implementation. Among policy justifications for such contracts is the maximization of value given scarce resources. We show that while uniform pricing rules can handle variable effectiveness in efficient markets, market inefficiencies of other kinds create a role for different value-based pricing structures. We first present a stylized theoretical model of efficient interaction among drug manufacturers, payers, and beneficiaries. In this stylized setting, uniform pricing works well, even when treatment effects are variable. We then use this framework to define market failures that result in obstacles to uniform pricing. The market failures we identify include: (1) uncertainty of patient distribution, (2) asymmetric beliefs, (3) agency imperfection by payer, (4) agency imperfection by provider, and (5) patient behavior and treatment adherence. We then apply our insights to real-world examples of alternative payment models, and highlight challenges related to contract implementation.
药品通常按惯例统一定价,但针对不同疾病适应症的疗效却存在差异。随着越来越多的高成本疗法问世,尽管替代支付模式(APM)在实施过程中存在诸多有据可查的局限性和挑战,但许多发达国家对其的需求仍不断增加。此类合同的政策依据之一是在资源稀缺的情况下实现价值最大化。我们表明,虽然统一定价规则可以在有效市场中处理疗效的可变性,但其他类型的市场失灵会为不同的基于价值的定价结构创造作用。我们首先提出了一个药物制造商、支付方和受益方之间有效互动的简化理论模型。在这种简化的设定下,即使治疗效果存在差异,统一定价也能很好地发挥作用。然后,我们利用这个框架来定义导致统一定价障碍的市场失灵。我们确定的市场失灵包括:(1)患者分布的不确定性;(2)信念不对称;(3)支付方的代理不完善;(4)提供方的代理不完善;(5)患者行为和治疗依从性。然后,我们将这些见解应用于替代支付模式的实际案例,并强调与合同实施相关的挑战。