Search

Background Generic drugs have been seen as a potentially powerful way to alleviate the financial burden on patients and health care systems. Two strategies for achieving rational prices of generic drugs are tiered pricing framework and pooled purchasing power. We compare the pan-Canadian Tiered Pricing Framework (TPF) and the Chinese National Volume-Based Procurement (NVBP) as comparators to explore the similarities and differences between the two mechanisms and summarise lessons for other jurisdictions. Methods This comparative study applies Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework to systematically analyse the macro contexts, procedures, and long- and short-term results of each pricing mechanism, and the interactions between them. Results Structure: TPF is an upstream initiative aimed at lowering the prices of generic drugs and increasing coverage and price consistency. NVBP is a downstream national initiative prioritised for reducing drug prices to achieve value-based purchasing. Process: By associating the number of manufacturers with price cuts, TPF leaves the choice to manufacturers to decide if they want to enter a specific market. In contrast, the Chinese government determines NVBP list and has the authority to choose manufacturer(s) with the lowest price(s). TPF provides clear price information to potential suppliers with unclear order quantity. The NVBP drug price is determined by tendering, while procurement volume is clear and massive. Outcome: The effectiveness of TPF and NVBP is similar, with both achieving a 53% price cut. Both TPF and NVBP experienced efficiency improvement since their establishment, with 98 and 86 drugs priced per year. By comparing 60 drugs covered by both programmes, the NVBP price is 57% of that of the TPF counterpart on average (1.1 to 301.6%), by purchase power parity. Conclusions The tiered pricing scheme is feasible in regions with a stable and mature pharmaceutical market, typically seen in high-income countries, while tendering is more workable in low- and middle-income countries where the pharmaceutical market is weak and unstable. Experience in the two countries shows that a coordinated pricing mechanism involves many piecemeal interactive problems, which a sophisticated system with a robust long-range plan may address better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We initially reported on the cost-effectiveness of a 6-month randomized controlled implementation trial which evaluated Health TAPESTRY, a primary care program for older adults, at the McMaster Family Health Team (FHT) site and 5 other FHT sites in Ontario, Canada. While there were no statistically significant between-group differences in outcomes at month 6 post randomization, positive outcomes were observed at the McMaster FHT site, which recruited 40% (204/512) of the participants. The objective of this post-hoc study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of Health TAPESTRY based on data from the McMaster FHT site. Methods: Costs included the cost to implement Health TAPESTRY at McMaster as well as healthcare resource consumed, which were costed using publicly available sources. Health-related-quality-of-life was evaluated with the EQ-5L-5L at baseline and at month 6 post randomization. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were calculated under an-area-under the curve approach. Unadjusted and adjusted regression analyses (two independent regression analyses on costs and QALYs, seemingly unrelated regression [SUR], net benefit regression) as well as difference-in-difference and propensity score matching (PSM) methods, were used to deal with the non-randomized nature of the trial. Sampling uncertainty inherent to the trial data was estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping. The return on investment (ROI) associated with Health TAPESTRY was calculated. All costs were reported in 2021 Canadian dollars. Results: With an intervention cost of $293/patient, Health TAPESTRY was the preferred strategy in the unadjusted and adjusted analyses. The results of our bootstrap analyses indicated that Health TAPESTRY was cost-effective compared to usual care at commonly accepted WTP thresholds. For example, if decision makers were willing to pay $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability of Health TAPESTRY to be cost effective compared to usual care varied from 0.72 (unadjusted analysis) to 0.96 (SUR) when using a WTP of $50,000/QALY gained. The DID and ROI analyses indicated that Health Tapestry generated a positive ROI. Conclusion: Health TAPESTRY was the preferred strategy when implemented at the McMaster FHT. We caution care in interpreting the results because of the post-hoc nature of the analyses and limited sample size based on one site. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]