Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

Value and price of multi-indication cancer drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland

Michaeli, Daniel Tobias, Mills, Mackenzie and Kanavos, Panos ORCID: 0000-0001-9518-3089 (2022) Value and price of multi-indication cancer drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 20 (5). 757 - 768. ISSN 1175-5652

[img] Text (Michaeli2022_Article_ValueAndPriceOfMulti-indicatio) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (2MB)

Identification Number: 10.1007/s40258-022-00737-w

Abstract

Purpose: Oncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Methods: Twenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions. Results: First approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05–3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02–1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05–2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2–63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5–109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1–720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions. Conclusions: Results suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication’s differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.

Item Type: Article
Official URL: https://www.springer.com/journal/40258
Additional Information: © 2022 The Authors
Divisions: Health Policy
Subjects: R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
H Social Sciences > HB Economic Theory
JEL classification: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I11 - Analysis of Health Care Markets
D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure and Pricing > D40 - General
Date Deposited: 29 Jul 2022 23:18
Last Modified: 15 Sep 2022 08:54
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/115720

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics