Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42412318›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Cost-effectiveness, pharmaceutical pricing and the value flower - doing some gardening.

Lars Sandman, Martin Henriksson, Erik Gustavsson, David Lindqvist, Niklas Juth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Lars SandmanDepartment of health, medicine and caring sciences, National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping university, Hus 511, ingång 76 eller 78, plan 13, Campus US, Lasarettsbacken, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0987-7653
Martin HenrikssonDepartment of health, medicine and caring sciences, National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping university, Hus 511, ingång 76 eller 78, plan 13, Campus US, Lasarettsbacken, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1699-3185
Erik GustavssonDivision of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University, Campus Valla, Key, Ingång Key, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5448-9209
David LindqvistDivision of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University, Campus Valla, Key, Ingång Key, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0053-0524
Niklas JuthDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research and Bioethics, Uppsala university, Husargatan 3, 752 37, Uppsala, Sweden. niklas.juth@crb.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1339-4956

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the recent years, ISPOR has proposed a number of values that could be taken into account in health technology assessments, for instance when doing an evaluation of what determines society's price for pharmaceutical treatments. These includes values that are not usually considered in health economic evaluation of pharmaceutical pricing, for instance option value, the value of hope and knowing, insurance value, the value of avoiding contagion, and scientific spillover. If these values were included in assessments of pricing of pharmaceutical, it would lead to broadening the cost-effectiveness analysis. We scrutinize the these suggested new value petals of the so-called value flower from two points of views: ethical value theory and the practical implications for a public healthcare system of a European kind, which factors in considerations of traditional cost-effectiveness (primarily in terms of net cost and quality-adjusted life years) and justice (primarily in terms of severity) from the outset. We argue that some of the suggested value petals should not be included in the health economic assessment for several reasons related to value theory or practical considerations in the welfare state: some are mutually conflicting, some do not point out unequivocally positive values, some entails double counting, some are already included in healthcare systems with universal coverage, or can be better handled by other means than by affecting pharmaceutical pricing. A few new petals have potential merit, for instance equity, but much work, both normative and empirical, is required if they should be included in the assessment of pharmaceuticals.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsCost-Effectiveness AnalysisEuropeHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-effectivenessHealth economyHealth technology assessmentJust pricingPharmaceuticalsValue theory

Identifiers

PMID42412318
PMCPMC13652857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.