Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39495345›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025

Drug pricing models, no 'one-size-fits-all' approach: a systematic review and critical evaluation of pricing models in an evolving pharmaceutical landscape.

Evert A Manders, Sibren van den Berg, Saco J de Visser, Carla E M Hollak

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Repurposing biosimilars, rethinking costs: a framework for sustainable drug pricing for repurposed bevacizumab for intravitreal injections.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Price determinants and pricing policies concerning potentially innovative health technologies: a scoping review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  5. Medicine Development and Access for Rare Diseases: Can We Do Better?Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Evert A MandersMedicine for Society, Platform at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-8200-3195
Sibren van den BergMedicine for Society, Platform at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Saco J de VisserMedicine for Society, Platform at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carla E M HollakMedicine for Society, Platform at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.e.hollak@amsterdamumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Drug CostsModels, EconomicCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansAffordabilityDrug costsDrug pricingDrug pricing modelsInnovation

Identifiers

PMID39495345
PMCPMC12126323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.