Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36952209›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2023

Healthcare Payer Perspectives on the Assessment and Pricing of Oncology Multi-Indication Products: Evidence from Nine OECD Countries.

Mackenzie Mills, Panos Kanavos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mackenzie MillsDepartment of Health Policy and LSE Health, Medical Technology Research Group, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. M.J.Mills@lse.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8756-3484
Panos KanavosDepartment of Health Policy and LSE Health, Medical Technology Research Group, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.

Funding

Novartis Independent Research Grant to MTRG
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew pharmaceuticals are increasingly being developed for use across multiple indications. Countries across Europe and North America have adopted a range of different approaches to capture differences in the value of individual indications.

objectiveThe three aims of this study were (i) to review the price-setting practice over the past 5 years for multi-indication products across England, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey, Canada and the USA; (ii) to assess the impact of current practices on launch strategy; and (iii) to identify issues in the implementation of indication-based pricing.

methodsTen current and former members of health insurance organisations, healthcare payer organisations or health technology assessment agencies with expertise on pharmaceutical purchasing were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 for thematic analysis.

resultsThe majority of countries studied require full assessments upon launch of a new indication. Five different approaches to pricing were identified: weighted pricing, differential discounting, mandatory discount, price anchoring and free pricing. Manufacturers show a tendency to launch first in niche indications with high unmet need to achieve a high price. Stakeholders from England, France, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland consider their current system fit for purpose, while other countries expressed concern over the administrative burden of monitoring products at indication level.

conclusionsGiven the high administrative burden, it is questionable whether indication-based pricing would provide additional public benefit above and beyond current weighted dynamic single pricing and differential discounting practices for multi-indication products.

Identifiers

PMID36952209
PMCPMC10333146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.