Manders Evert A, van den Berg Sibren, de Visser Saco J, Hollak Carla E M
Medicine for Society, Platform at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Nov 4. doi: 10.1007/s10198-024-01731-w.
Access to new medicines is crucial for patients but increasingly sparks discussion due to high prices. Simultaneously, the growing emphasis on specialized products and uncertainty surrounding the long-term effectiveness of new drug classes brought to the market underscore the need for innovative pricing approaches. A systematic literature review of pharmaceutical pricing models, accompanied by a critical appraisal, was conducted to offer insights contributing to novel approaches balancing sustainable pharmaceutical innovation with affordability and accessibility for patients. Six different pricing models are identified: value based pricing, basic cost-based pricing, and four more comprehensive pricing models incorporating numerous elements: the cancer-drug-pricing model, AIM model, (Nuijtens) discounted cash flow, and the real-option rate of return method. Although there are many similarities among the models, each has unique assumptions for implementation. For instance, all models except for the standard incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and basic cost-based pricing consider the number of eligible patients and the remaining patent period. Only the AIM model and the Nuijtens discounted cash flow model use lump sums. Both the latter and the real-option rate of return method explicitly include the cost of capital as a major cost-based component. Recognizing the diverse applications of each model highlights the need for more differential and dynamic pricing tailored to the characteristics and therapeutic areas of each drug. Additionally, the study underscores the importance of cost transparency in achieving this goal. Consequently, these findings can help stakeholders develop sustainable and affordable drug pricing mechanisms that address the complexities of the ever-changing pharmaceutical landscape.
获得新药对患者至关重要,但由于价格高昂,这一问题日益引发讨论。与此同时,对专业产品的日益重视以及围绕新上市药物类别长期有效性的不确定性,凸显了创新定价方法的必要性。我们对药品定价模型进行了系统的文献综述,并进行了批判性评估,以提供有助于平衡可持续药物创新与患者可承受性和可及性的新方法的见解。确定了六种不同的定价模型:基于价值的定价、基于基本成本的定价,以及另外四种包含众多要素的综合定价模型:抗癌药物定价模型、AIM模型、(努伊滕斯)折现现金流模型和实物期权回报率法。尽管这些模型之间有许多相似之处,但每个模型在实施方面都有独特的假设。例如,除了标准增量成本效益比和基于基本成本的定价外,所有模型都考虑了符合条件的患者数量和剩余专利期限。只有AIM模型和努伊滕斯折现现金流模型使用一次性款项。后两者以及实物期权回报率法都明确将资本成本作为主要的基于成本的组成部分。认识到每个模型的不同应用突出了需要根据每种药物的特点和治疗领域制定更具差异化和动态化的定价。此外,该研究强调了成本透明度在实现这一目标方面的重要性。因此,这些发现可以帮助利益相关者制定可持续且可承受的药品定价机制,以应对不断变化的制药格局的复杂性。