Lane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, UK.
Centre for Pharmaceutical Medicine Research, King's College London, London, UK.
BMC Med. 2024 Jan 30;22(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03262-w.
Contemporary debates about drug pricing feature several widely held misconceptions, including the relationship between incentives and innovation, the proportion of total healthcare spending on pharmaceuticals, and whether the economic evaluation of a medicine can be influenced by things other than clinical efficacy.
All citizens should have access to timely, equitable, and cost-effective care covered by public funds, private insurance, or a combination of both. Better managing the collective burden of diseases borne by today's and future generations depends in part on developing better technologies, including better medicines. As in any innovative industry, the expectation of adequate financial returns incentivizes innovators and their investors to develop new medicines. Estimating expected returns requires that they forecast revenues, based on the future price trajectory and volume of use over time. How market participants decide what price to set or accept can be complicated, and some observers and stakeholders want to confirm whether the net prices society pays for novel medicines, whether as a reward for past innovation or an incentive for future innovation, are commensurate with those medicines' incremental value. But we must also ask "value to whom?"; medicines not only bring immediate clinical benefits to patients treated today, but also can provide a broad spectrum of short- and long-term benefits to patients, their families, and society. Spending across all facets of healthcare has grown over the last 25 years, but both inpatient and outpatient spending has outpaced drug spending growth even as our drug armamentarium is constantly improving with safer and more effective medicines. In large part, this is because, unlike hospitals, drugs typically go generic, thus making room in our budgets for new and better ones, even as they often keep patients out of hospitals, driving further savings.
A thorough evaluation of drug spending and value can help to promote a better allocation of healthcare resources for both the healthy and the sick, both of whom must pay for healthcare. Taking a holistic approach to assessing drug value makes it clear that a branded drug's value to a patient is often only a small fraction of the drug's total value to society. Societal value merits consideration when determining whether and how to make a medicine affordable and accessible to patients: a drug that is worth its price to society should not be rendered inaccessible to ill patients by imposing high out-of-pocket costs or restricting coverage based on narrow health technology assessments (HTAs). Furthermore, recognizing the total societal cost of un- or undertreated conditions is crucial to gaining a thorough understanding of what guides the biomedical innovation ecosystem to create value for society. It would be unwise to discourage the development of new solutions without first appreciating the cost of leaving the problems unsolved.
当代关于药品定价的争论存在几个普遍存在的误解,包括激励措施和创新之间的关系、药品在总医疗支出中所占的比例,以及药品的经济评估是否会受到临床疗效以外的因素的影响。
所有公民都应该能够及时、公平、有效地获得公共资金、私人保险或两者结合所覆盖的医疗保健。更好地管理当今和未来几代人所患疾病的集体负担,部分取决于开发更好的技术,包括更好的药物。在任何创新型行业中,对充足财务回报的预期都会激励创新者及其投资者开发新药。估计预期回报需要根据未来的价格轨迹和随时间推移的使用量来预测收入。市场参与者如何决定设定或接受什么价格可能很复杂,一些观察家和利益相关者希望确认社会为新型药物支付的净价格,无论是作为对过去创新的奖励还是对未来创新的激励,是否与这些药物的增量价值相称。但我们还必须问“对谁有价值?”;药物不仅为今天接受治疗的患者带来直接的临床益处,而且还可以为患者、他们的家人和社会带来广泛的短期和长期利益。在过去的 25 年里,医疗保健的各个方面的支出都在增长,但即使我们的药物武器库不断得到改善,安全性更高、效果更好的药物,住院和门诊支出的增长速度也超过了药品支出的增长速度。在很大程度上,这是因为与医院不同,药品通常会变成通用药品,从而为我们的预算腾出空间,用于新的和更好的药品,即使它们经常使患者远离医院,从而进一步节省开支。
对药品支出和价值进行全面评估有助于促进对健康人群和患病人群的医疗资源更好地分配,因为他们都必须为医疗保健付费。从评估药物价值的整体方法可以清楚地看出,品牌药物对患者的价值通常只是药物对社会总价值的一小部分。在确定是否以及如何使药物对患者负担得起和可获得时,需要考虑社会价值:对于社会来说,一种药物的价格是合理的,不应该因为强加高额自付费用或根据狭隘的健康技术评估(HTA)限制覆盖范围而使患病患者无法获得该药物。此外,认识到未治疗或治疗不足的疾病的全社会成本对于全面了解指导生物医学创新生态系统为社会创造价值的因素至关重要。在没有首先了解不解决问题的成本的情况下,不鼓励开发新的解决方案是不明智的。