TY - JOUR
T1 - Securing sustainable price levels of innovative anticancer drugs
T2 - How to move forward?
AU - Franzen, N.
AU - Retèl, V.
AU - van Harten, W.
N1 - Elsevier deal
Funding Information:
We would like to thank the experts that kindly provided us with their feedback on the proposals. Especially, we would like to thank the OECI and the ECL for their support in the distribution of the survey. We are grateful for the help of Ward Rommel and Anke Wind in the design of the survey and their feedback on the manuscript. The study has been funded by a philanthropic, unrestricted grant. Funders were not involved in any part of the study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2021/3/1
Y1 - 2021/3/1
N2 - Background: Novel cancer treatments come with high price tags that compromise access to treatment and the sustainability of healthcare systems. Innovative policies are needed to reach a system that balances innovation and reasonable prices. However, structured approaches to explore, test, and compare innovative proposals are lacking. Methods: We surveyed experts to evaluate seven promising proposals to reduce drug prices: Transparency, Combined European purchasing, Public drug development, Public clinical trials, Two-part-pricing, Orphan drug reform, and De-linkage. Experts were asked to rank proposals, identify main risk and success factors, and to reflect on missing proposals. The survey was distributed via the networks of the European Cancer League and the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes. Results: Respondents (n = 41) originated from 19 European countries and included stakeholders in health economics, law, medicine, drug discovery, and healthcare policy.Transparency (M = 2; SD = 2 1) and Combined purchasing (M = 3; SD = 1 9) were ranked as the most promising proposals, Two-part pricing (M = 5; SD = 2 3) and De-linkage (M = 6; SD = 2 4) were considered as the most controversial. Main risk categories were a negative impact on R&D (n = 47), technical feasibility (n = 38), and reduced access to medicines (n = 33). Main success categories were international collaboration (n = 34) and agreement of pricing mechanisms (n = 25). Experts considered value assessment and strengthening of the competitive market as additional proposals for further analysis. Conclusion: We recommend expanding on these results to further specify actionable policies that can be tested. Pilots should consider uncertainties and conducted with a focus on international collaboration, preferably in cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry.
AB - Background: Novel cancer treatments come with high price tags that compromise access to treatment and the sustainability of healthcare systems. Innovative policies are needed to reach a system that balances innovation and reasonable prices. However, structured approaches to explore, test, and compare innovative proposals are lacking. Methods: We surveyed experts to evaluate seven promising proposals to reduce drug prices: Transparency, Combined European purchasing, Public drug development, Public clinical trials, Two-part-pricing, Orphan drug reform, and De-linkage. Experts were asked to rank proposals, identify main risk and success factors, and to reflect on missing proposals. The survey was distributed via the networks of the European Cancer League and the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes. Results: Respondents (n = 41) originated from 19 European countries and included stakeholders in health economics, law, medicine, drug discovery, and healthcare policy.Transparency (M = 2; SD = 2 1) and Combined purchasing (M = 3; SD = 1 9) were ranked as the most promising proposals, Two-part pricing (M = 5; SD = 2 3) and De-linkage (M = 6; SD = 2 4) were considered as the most controversial. Main risk categories were a negative impact on R&D (n = 47), technical feasibility (n = 38), and reduced access to medicines (n = 33). Main success categories were international collaboration (n = 34) and agreement of pricing mechanisms (n = 25). Experts considered value assessment and strengthening of the competitive market as additional proposals for further analysis. Conclusion: We recommend expanding on these results to further specify actionable policies that can be tested. Pilots should consider uncertainties and conducted with a focus on international collaboration, preferably in cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry.
KW - UT-Hybrid-D
KW - De-linkage
KW - Drug prices
KW - Orphan drug reform
KW - Public clinical trials
KW - Public drug development
KW - Transparency
KW - Two-part-pricing
KW - Combined purchasing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099373179&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcpo.2020.100266
DO - 10.1016/j.jcpo.2020.100266
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85099373179
SN - 2213-5383
VL - 27
JO - Journal of Cancer Policy
JF - Journal of Cancer Policy
M1 - 100266
ER -
