The Travesty of Expensive Insulin

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2933

2016-01-01

Abstract:A bad precedent for future drug pricing

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Lessons From Insulin: Policy Prescriptions for Affordable Diabetes and Obesity Medications

Kathryn E. Nagel,Reshma Ramachandran,Kasia J. Lipska

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dci23-0042

2024-03-27

Diabetes Care

Abstract:Escalating insulin prices have prompted public scrutiny of the practices of drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, health insurers, and pharmacies involved in production and distribution of medications. As a result, a series of policies have been proposed or enacted to improve insulin affordability and foster greater equity in access. These policies have implications for other diabetes and obesity therapeutics. Recent legislation, at both the state and federal level, has capped insulin out-of-pocket payments for some patients. Other legislation has targeted drug manufacturers directly in requiring rebates on drugs with price increases beyond inflation rates, an approach that may restrain price hikes for existing medications. In addition, government negotiation of drug pricing, a contentious issue, has gained traction, with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 permitting limited negotiation for certain high expenditure drugs without generic or biosimilar competition, including some insulin products and other diabetes medications. However, concerns persist that this may inadvertently encourage higher launch prices for new medications. Addressing barriers to competition has also been a priority such as through increased enforcement against anticompetitive practices (e.g., “product hopping”) and reduced regulatory requirements for biosimilar development and market entry. A novel approach involves public production, exemplified by California’s CalRx program, which aims to provide biosimilar insulins at significantly reduced prices. Achieving affordable and equitable access to insulin and other diabetes and obesity medications requires a multifaceted approach, involving state and federal intervention, ongoing policy evaluation and refinement, and critical examination of corporate influences in health care.

endocrinology & metabolism
Question-based drug development and the value of novel treatments

Saco J de Visser,Adam F Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2422459

2024-10-29

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

Abstract:KEYWORDS: High drug pricing is an important issue at the intersection of healthcare, economics, and ethics. The increasing cost of pharmaceuticals, advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), and more personalized treatment options jeopardizes the accessibility and affordability of interventions that are sometimes lifesaving globally. Increased drug pricing is increasingly leading to unaffordable treatments even in affluent societies. The prospect for the near future, with treatment prices per patient soaring and negative reimbursement decisions solely based on failed pricing negotiations is negative. This polarizes the discussion between different stakeholders including patients, health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, patient advocacy groups, payers (insurers and governments), (bio)ethicists, shareholders, academia, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and international bodies. Unfortunately, these discussions are often emotional. We discuss a method to rationalize the debate by explicitly incorporating uncertainties in value estimations throughout the drugs lifecycle.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Leading with the trailing edge: facilitating patient choice for insulin products

Robin Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad033

2023-12-12

Abstract:Insulin prices have risen sharply, despite a century since its introduction. Against this backdrop, companies have discontinued dozens of insulin products. Discontinuation could relate to safety or effectiveness, or to the overwhelming benefits of newer products. On the other hand, discontinuation could suggest strategic behavior hampering competition and supporting prices. To test these theories, this project examined every insulin discontinuation, analyzing the role discontinuations play in insulin affordability. No evidence emerged of any discontinuation for safety or effectiveness. Rather, dozens of viable products were removed from the market, followed by more expensive versions, often with little or no clinical improvement. Insulin pens with a phone app may provide advantages, for example. However, for older patients, who may find the technology confusing, or for patients with budget constraints, the value proposition falters. Moreover, discontinuation blocks biosimilars from market entry because they cannot demonstrate biosimilarity without the drug. The problem exists for all biosimilars. If there are willing buyers and willing sellers of clinically effective products that are off-patent, entry should be facilitated. This article suggests a requirement that companies deposit samples at the time of FDA approval, laying the groundwork for later entry of trailing-edge products with clinically viable outcomes.
Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices

David J. Stewart,John-Peter Bradford,Sandeep Sehdev,Tim Ramsay,Vishal Navani,Nigel S. B. Rawson,Di Maria Jiang,Joanna Gotfrit,Paul Wheatley-Price,Geoffrey Liu,Alan Kaplan,Silvana Spadafora,Shaun G. Goodman,Rebecca A. C. Auer,Gerald Batist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31050184

2024-04-29

Current Oncology

Abstract:Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

oncology
Why are our medicines so expensive? Spoiler: Not for the reasons you are being told...

Els Torreele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2308006

2024-02-02

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:Often described as a natural economic trend, the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for new medicines have skyrocketed in recent years. Companies claim these prices are justified because of the 'value' new treatments represent or that they reflect the high costs and risks associated with the research and development process. They also claim that the revenues generated through these high prices are required to pay for continued innovation. This paper argues that high prices are not inevitable but the result of a societal and political choice to rely on a for-profit business model for medical innovation, selling medicines at the highest price possible. Instead of focusing on therapeutic advances, it prioritises profit maximisation to benefit shareholders and investors over improving people's health outcomes or equitable access. As a result, people and health systems worldwide struggle to pay for the increasingly expensive health products, with growing inequities in access to even life-saving medicines while the biopharmaceutical industry and its financiers are the most lucrative business sectors. As the extreme COVID-19 vaccine inequities once again highlighted, we urgently need to reform the social contract between governments, the biopharmaceutical industry, and the public and restore its original health purpose. Policymakers must redesign policies and financing of the pharmaceutical research and development ecosystem such that public and private sectors work together towards the shared objective of responding to public health and patients' needs, rather than maximising financial return because medicines should not be a luxury.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Addressing the challenge of high-priced prescription drugs in the era of precision medicine: A systematic review of drug life cycles, therapeutic drug markets and regulatory frameworks

Toon van der Gronde,Carin A Uyl-de Groot,Toine Pieters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182613

IF: 3.7

2017-08-16

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Context: Recent public outcry has highlighted the rising cost of prescription drugs worldwide, which in several disease areas outpaces other health care expenditures and results in a suboptimal global availability of essential medicines. Method: A systematic review of Pubmed, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian was performed to identify articles related to the pricing of medicines. Findings: Changes in drug life cycles have dramatically affected patent medicine markets, which have long been considered a self-evident and self-sustainable source of income for highly profitable drug companies. Market failure in combination with high merger and acquisition activity in the sector have allowed price increases for even off-patent drugs. With market interventions and the introduction of QALY measures in health care, governments have tried to influence drug prices, but often encounter unintended consequences. Patent reform legislation, reference pricing, outcome-based pricing and incentivizing physicians and pharmacists to prescribe low-cost drugs are among the most promising short-term policy options. Due to the lack of systematic research on the effectiveness of policy measures, an increasing number of ad hoc decisions have been made with counterproductive effects on the availability of essential drugs. Future challenges demand new policies, for which recommendations are offered. Conclusion: A fertile ground for high-priced drugs has been created by changes in drug life-cycle dynamics, the unintended effects of patent legislation, government policy measures and orphan drug programs. There is an urgent need for regulatory reform to curtail prices and safeguard equitable access to innovative medicines.
Pricing, profits and pharmacoeconomics--for whose benefit?

J R Adams,S Ali,C L Bennett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2.3.377

Abstract:In today's troubled healthcare climate, it is not uncommon to run across headlines like: 'Health insurance premiums increasing by 10 percent to 30 percent across the country.' This particular New York Times article went on to explain that this premium price hike, the third consecutive double digit increase in 3 years, is driven largely by escalating pharmaceutical costs. The pharmaceutical industry has largely been vilified in the media and in the recent presidential debates, for fueling healthcare inflation and setting what many perceive to be 'unfair' prices in light of the profit margins on their life-saving products. A report released by the Congressional Research Service found that after tax, profits for the pharmaceutical industry averaged 17% of sales, compared with 5% for all other industries. The White House has added its voice to the popular discontent with notices such as this one reported in the New York Times: 'There is a rising tide politically in this country of strong antagonism against the pharmaceutical industry on the dimension of prices. (Without expanded access to insurance) price controls are an inevitable outcome.' Although the prospect of price control remains dubious in America's entrenched laissez-faire economy, David Kessler, former head of the FDA and the Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, described the situation as a 'powder keg,' stating 'the current system is simply not sustainable'. Although there does not appear to be an immediate solution to this escalating crisis, this editorial will examine pharmaceutical pricing, industry profits and the role of pharmacoeconomic analyses amidst the chaos.
Competition Watchdog Finds New Target: Overpriced Generics

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6712

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:A spate of hefty fines has sent a clear warning to drug companies. Nigel Hawkes reports
When the Price is Right: Drug Costing and NICE Approval

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6519

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Price discounts are leading to a flurry of NICE approvals. Nigel Hawkes investigates
Orphan drugs' clinical uncertainty and prices: Addressing allocative and technical inefficiencies in orphan drug reimbursement

Hans-Georg Eichler,Michael Kossmeier,Markus Zeitlinger,Brigitte Schwarzer-Daum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1074512

2023-01-26

Abstract:Legislations incentivising orphan drug development and scientific advances have made orphan drugs pharma's high-end favourite for the past two decades. Currently, around 50% of new marketing authorizations are for orphan drugs. For third-party healthcare payers ("payers") the rise of orphan drugs presents new challenges, including a high degree of uncertainty around clinical benefits and harms, a moderate effect size (for many orphan drugs), and a high price tag. The association of high clinical uncertainty and moderate effect sizes is not surprising in small target populations but in combination with high prices creates the risk of allocative and technical inefficiencies for payers. We here discuss and illustrate these risks. A combination of policies is needed for mitigation of allocative inefficiency: while there may be a rationale for higher prices for orphan than non-orphan drugs, a focus of pricing and reimbursement negotiations should include considerations of product profitability and of the consequences of orphan drug costs on the distribution inequality of medication costs for individual insured persons, coupled to knowledge generation from reimbursement contracts covering high-price orphan drugs that would benefit the wider patient community. Performance-based managed entry agreements could help to de-risk the economic consequences of clinical uncertainty and to mitigate technical inefficiency.
Upstream solutions for price-gouging on critical generic medicines

Adam R Houston,Reed F Beall,Amir Attaran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-016-0064-8

2016-05-02

Abstract:Exorbitant price increases for critical off-patent medicines have received considerable media attention in recent months, leading to an investigation by the U.S. Senate. However, much of this attention has focused upon the companies that initiated the price increases, all of whom had recently acquired the drugs in question. Overlooked are upstream interventions with the originators of these drugs to prevent generics trolling in the first place. Using the particular example of Eli Lilly and Company's efforts to divest itself of cycloserine, a flawed process that paved the way for the recent price hike by Rodelis Therapeutics, this article highlights the responsibilities of drug originators, and safeguards to ensure similar rights transfers do not affect ongoing affordable access.
NICE Uses Wrong Comparator to Assess Cost Effectiveness of New Drugs, Report Says.

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2134

2014-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Patients may be denied access to new drugs and medical innovation may be stalled by the way the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assesses medicines for cost effectiveness, a report from the University College London School of Pharmacy has claimed.1 Licensed to Cure? said that in around a quarter of the cost effectiveness assessments of new medicines that NICE carried out from 2008 to the end of 2013 the manufacturers were asked to provide data on a non-licensed alternative against which their product could be compared. David Taylor, one of the authors of the report, said that the use of low cost non-licensed medicines as comparators was wrong and could create a false perception of the true value of a new medicine. “If you were to compare the cost of a new Volvo against an old banger, it’s very unlikely the Volvo would …
NICE is Too Generous in Approving Drugs, Analysis Says.

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h955

2015-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The method used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to assess the value of new drugs in England has done more harm than good, concludes an analysis by the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York.1 And the Cancer Drugs Fund has done even greater harm, it found, saying that the money spent by the fund on expensive cancer drugs would have done five times as much good if spent elsewhere in the NHS. Karl Claxton, lead author of the analysis, told a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London that NHS outcomes would be better if it refused to fund any drug that cost more than £13 000 (€17 500; $20 000) per quality adjusted life year …
Value-based pricing of drugs with multiple indications or in combinations — lessons from Europe

Kerstin N. Vokinger,Aaron S. Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-021-00561-6

IF: 78.8

2021-09-23

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, Published online: 23 September 2021; doi:10.1038/s41571-021-00561-6Legislators in the USA have been discussing reforms to reduce the high cost of brand-name drugs, which are much higher in the USA than in other industrialized countries. One solution is to actively negotiate prices based on drugs' clinical benefits. We discuss two important complexities from such an approach: drugs that have been approved for multiple indications and as part of a combination regimen.

oncology
After 100 years of life, is there an insulin crisis? The problem of insulin costs and the opportunity of biosimilar insulins

Domenico Cucinotta,Annalisa Giandalia,Giuseppina Russo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33393/ao.2024.2730

2023-02-09

AboutOpen

Abstract:Considering other pharmacological approaches, also in the field of insulin therapy, the use of biosimilar drugs instead of originators could help to reduce the worldwide increasing costs of its related disease, that is, diabetes mellitus (DM), and the subsequent risk of insulin underutilization. Available evidences clearly demonstrate that biosimilar efficacy and safety are superimposable to those of the originator insulin with lower expenditure; despite this, however, their underutilization persists both in Eastern and in Western countries. Specific, regional activities are needed in order to improve biosimilar insulin use and to contribute to a substantial reduction of the costs of DM.
The increasing costs of medicines and their implications for patients, physicians and the health system

Narcyz Ghinea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16370

2024-04-06

Internal Medicine Journal

Abstract:Most new medicines entering the market are high‐cost speciality drugs. These drugs can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per course of treatment and in some cases millions of dollars per dose. Approximately half of all spending on medicines is projected to target only 2–3% of patients, raising important questions about resource allocation. While there is no doubt that breakthrough innovations have transformed clinical care in some disciplines, it is also true that cost is becoming one of the primary barriers to treatment access and that many new medicines do not provide value commensurate with their prices. This article examines pricing trends, the reasons for high prices and their implications for access and clinical practice.

medicine, general & internal
Choosing Drugs on Price Alone Will Stifle Innovation, Says Report

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6065

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The NHS in England should not focus exclusively on price when buying medicines, says a new report published by the London School of Economics (LSE).1Doing so risks endangering constructive partnerships between clinicians, NHS managers, and drug companies and conflicts with the government’s aim of balancing affordability with encouraging innovation, the report warned.While the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme and HM Treasury both seek to strike this balance, the report warned that growing pressure on NHS budgets will encourage cost saving to the detriment of cooperation and innovation.Tender Loving Care? was written by Andrew Bonser, a consultant who has worked for Pfizer and Boots; Panos Kanavos, deputy director of LSE Health; and David Taylor, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical and public health policy at University College London. It was commissioned and funded …
When the price is right: drug costing and NICE approval.

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6519

2016-01-01

Abstract:Price discounts are leading to a flurry of NICE approvals. Nigel Hawkes investigatesAfter years of standoffs and angry words, drug companies are cutting prices of cancer treatments in a bid to gain approval for use in the NHS in England.This change of policy, unpredicted when the old Cancer Drugs Fund was wound up in July,1 has analysts puzzled. Has the industry finally recognised that its products are not worth as much as it once claimed? Or is there a subtle plan to clear the decks of unapproved drugs to make room in the revamped Cancer Drugs Fund for yet more expensive ones coming down the pipeline?Whatever the reason, the result has been to allow the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to approve, at the draft or final guidance stage, seven of the first nine drugs it has reviewed from the old Cancer Drugs Fund list.2 In November NICE approved three drugs for breast cancer in as many weeks and reversed …
Application of the Price–Volume Approach in Cases of Innovative Drugs Where Value-Based Pricing is Inadequate: Description of Real Experiences in Italy

Andrea Messori

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-016-0408-9

2016-05-23

Clinical Drug Investigation

Abstract:Several cases of expensive drugs designed for large patient populations (e.g. sofosbuvir) have raised a complex question in terms of drug pricing. Even assuming value-based pricing, the treatment with these drugs of all eligible patients would have an immense budgetary impact, which is unsustainable also for the richest countries. This raises the need to reduce the prices of these agents in comparison with those suggested by the value-based approach and to devise new pricing methods that can achieve this goal. The present study discusses in detail the following two methods: (i) The approach based on setting nation-wide budget thresholds for individual innovative agents in which a fixed proportion of the historical pharmaceutical expenditure represents the maximum budget attributable to an innovative treatment; (ii) The approach based on nation-wide price–volume agreements in which drug prices are progressively reduced as more patients receive the treatment. The first approach has been developed in the USA by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and has been applied to PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab and evolocumab). The second approach has been designed for the Italian market and has found a systematic application to manage the price of ranibizumab, sofosbuvir, and PCSK9 inhibitors. While, in the past, price–volume agreements have been applied only on an empirical basis (i.e. in the absence of any quantitative theoretical rule), more recently some explicit mathematical models have been described. The performance of these models is now being evaluated on the basis of the real-world experiences conducted in some European countries, especially Italy.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Taxpayers' Share of US Prescription Drug and Insulin Costs: a Cross-Sectional Study

Elizabeth Schrier,David U. Himmelstein,Adam Gaffney,Danny McCormick,Steffie Woolhandler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09032-x

IF: 5.7

2024-10-26

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:Drug prices affect government budgets directly through spending on public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and indirectly via private coverage for public employees and tax subsidies for private insurance. Yet, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the Senate could not use streamlined Budget Reconciliation to extend the Inflation Reduction Act's controls on insulin co-payment or drug prices to private insurers on the grounds that their expenditures do not affect the federal budget.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services

The Travesty of Expensive Insulin

Lessons From Insulin: Policy Prescriptions for Affordable Diabetes and Obesity Medications

Question-based drug development and the value of novel treatments

Leading with the trailing edge: facilitating patient choice for insulin products

Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices

Why are our medicines so expensive? Spoiler: Not for the reasons you are being told...

Addressing the challenge of high-priced prescription drugs in the era of precision medicine: A systematic review of drug life cycles, therapeutic drug markets and regulatory frameworks

Pricing, profits and pharmacoeconomics--for whose benefit?

Competition Watchdog Finds New Target: Overpriced Generics

When the Price is Right: Drug Costing and NICE Approval

Orphan drugs' clinical uncertainty and prices: Addressing allocative and technical inefficiencies in orphan drug reimbursement

Upstream solutions for price-gouging on critical generic medicines

NICE Uses Wrong Comparator to Assess Cost Effectiveness of New Drugs, Report Says.

NICE is Too Generous in Approving Drugs, Analysis Says.

Value-based pricing of drugs with multiple indications or in combinations — lessons from Europe

After 100 years of life, is there an insulin crisis? The problem of insulin costs and the opportunity of biosimilar insulins

The increasing costs of medicines and their implications for patients, physicians and the health system

Choosing Drugs on Price Alone Will Stifle Innovation, Says Report

When the price is right: drug costing and NICE approval.

Application of the Price–Volume Approach in Cases of Innovative Drugs Where Value-Based Pricing is Inadequate: Description of Real Experiences in Italy

Taxpayers' Share of US Prescription Drug and Insulin Costs: a Cross-Sectional Study