Search

Introduction: Drug reimbursement decisions are often made based on a price set by the manufacturer. In some cases, this price leads to public and scientific debates about whether its level can be justified in relation to its costs, including those related to research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Such considerations could enter the decision process in collectively financed health care systems. This paper investigates whether manufacturers' costs in relation to drug prices, or profit margins, are explicitly mentioned and considered by health technology assessment (HTA) organisations. Method: An analysis of reimbursement reports for cancer drugs was performed. All relevant Dutch HTA-reports, published between 2017 and 2019, were selected and matched with HTA-reports from three other jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia). Information was extracted. Additionally, reimbursement reports for three cases of expensive non-oncolytic orphan drugs prominent in pricing debates in the Netherlands were investigated in depth to examine consideration of profit margins. Results: A total of 66 HTA-reports concerning 15 cancer drugs were included. None of these reports contained information on manufacturer's costs or profit margins. Some reports contained general considerations of the HTA organisation which related prices to manufacturers' costs: six contained a statement on the lack of price setting transparency, one mentioned recouping R&D costs as a potential argument to justify a high price. For the case studies, 21 HTA-reports were selected. One contained a cost-based price justification provided by the manufacturer. None of the other reports contained information on manufacturer's costs or profit margins. Six reports contained a discussion about lack of transparency. Reports from two jurisdictions contained invitations to justify high prices by demonstrating high costs. Conclusion: Despite the attention given to manufacturers' costs in relation to price in public debates and in the literature, this issue does not seem to get explicit systematic consideration in the reimbursement reports of expensive drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The value of a life is regularly monetised by government departments for informing resource allocation. Guidance documents indicate how economic evaluation should be conducted, often specifying precise values for different impacts. However, we find different values of life and health are used in analyses by departments within the same government despite commonality in desired outcomes. This creates potential inconsistencies in considering trade-offs within a broader public sector spending budget. We provide evidence to better inform the political process and to raise important issues in assessing the value of public expenditure across different sectors. Methods: Our document analysis identifies thresholds, explicitly or implicitly, as observed in government-related publications in the following public sectors: health, social care, transport, and environment. We include both demand-side and supply-side thresholds, understood as societies' and governments' willingness to pay for health gains. We look at key countries that introduced formal economic evaluation processes early on and have impacted other countries' policy development: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We also present a framework to consider how governments allocate resources across different public services. Results: Our analysis supports that identifying and describing the Value of a Life from disparate public sector activities in a manner that facilitates comparison is theoretically meaningful. The optimal allocation of resources across sectors depends on the relative position of benefits across different attributes, weighted by the social value that society puts on them. The value of a Quality-Adjusted Life Year is generally used as a demand-side threshold by Departments of transport and environment. It exceeds those used in health, often by a large enough proportion to be a multiple thereof. Decisions made across departments are generally based on an unspecified rationing rule. Conclusions: Comparing government expenditure across different public sector departments, in terms of the value of each department outcome, is not only possible but also desirable. It is essential for an optimal resource allocation to identify the relevant social attributes and to quantify the value of these attributes for each department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Kidney transplantation (KT) is often reported in the literature as associated with cost savings. However, existing studies differ in their choice of comparator, follow-up period, and the study perspective. Also, there may be unobservable heterogeneity in health care costs in the patient population which may divide the population into groups with differences in cost distributions. This study estimates the cost savings associated with KT from a payer perspective and identifies and characterizes both high and low patient cost groups. Method: The current study was a population-based retrospective before-and-after study. The timespan involved at most three years before and after KT. The sample included end-stage kidney disease patients in Nova Scotia, a province in Canada, who had a single KT between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018. Each patient served as their control. The primary outcome measure was total annual health care costs. We estimated cost savings using unadjusted and adjusted models, stratifying the analyses by donor type. We quantified the uncertainty around the estimates using non-parametric and parametric bootstrapping. We also used finite mixture models to identify data-driven cost groups based on patients' pre-transplantation annual inpatient costs. Results: The mean annual cost savings per patient associated with KT was $19,589 (95% CI: $14,013, $23,397). KT was associated with a 24–29% decrease in mean annual health care costs per patient compared with the annual costs before KT. We identified and characterized patients in three cost groups made of 2.9% in low-cost (LC), 51.8% in medium-cost (MC) and 45.3% in high-cost (HC). Cost group membership did not change after KT. Comparing costs in each group before and after KT, we found that KT was associated with 17% mean annual cost reductions for the LC group, 24% for the MC group and 26% for the HC group. The HC group included patients more likely to have a higher comorbidity burden (Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3). Conclusions: KT was associated with reductions in annual health care costs in the short term, even after accounting for costs incurred during KT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]