Cost–effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost–effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost–effectiveness thresholds allow cost–effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization’s Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost–effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country’s per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this – in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost–effectiveness ratios – can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost–effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations – e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations – in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost–effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.

IntroductionNew hepatitis C virus (HCV) medicines have markedly improved treatment efficacy and regimen tolerability. However, their high prices have limited access, prompting wide debate about fair and affordable prices. This study systematically compared the price and affordability of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir across 30 countries to assess affordability to health systems and patients.Methods and FindingsPublished 2015 ex-factory prices for a 12-wk course of treatment were provided by the Pharma Price Information (PPI) service of the Austrian public health institute Gesundheit Österreich GmbH or were obtained from national government or drug reimbursement authorities and recent press releases, where necessary. Prices in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and select low- and middle-income countries were converted to US dollars using period average exchange rates and were adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). We analysed prices compared to national economic performance and estimated market size and the cost of these drugs in terms of countries’ annual total pharmaceutical expenditure (TPE) and in terms of the duration of time an individual would need to work to pay for treatment out of pocket. Patient affordability was calculated using 2014 OECD average annual wages, supplemented with International Labour Organization median wage data where necessary. All data were compiled between 17 July 2015 and 25 January 2016. For the base case analysis, we assumed a 23% rebate/discount on the published price in all countries, except for countries with special pricing arrangements or generic licensing agreements.The median nominal ex-factory price of a 12-wk course of sofosbuvir across 26 OECD countries was US$42,017, ranging from US$37,729 in Japan to US$64,680 in the US. Central and Eastern European countries had higher PPP-adjusted prices than other countries: prices of sofosbuvir in Poland and Turkey (PPP$101,063 and PPP$70,331) and of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in Poland (PPP$118,754) were at least 1.09 and 1.63 times higher, respectively than in the US (PPP$64,680 and PPP$72,765). Based on PPP-adjusted TPE and without the cost of ribavirin and other treatment costs, treating the entire HCV viraemic population with these regimens at the PPP-adjusted prices with a 23% price reduction would amount to at least one-tenth of current TPE across the countries included in this study, ranging from 10.5% of TPE in the Netherlands to 190.5% of TPE in Poland. In 12 countries, the price of a course of sofosbuvir without other costs was equivalent to 1 y or more of the average annual wage of individuals, ranging from 0.21 y in Egypt to 5.28 y in Turkey. This analysis relies on the accuracy of price information and infection prevalence estimates. It does not include the costs of diagnostic testing, supplementary treatments, treatment for patients with reinfection or cirrhosis, or associated health service costs.ConclusionsCurrent prices of these medicines are variable and unafford...

No abstract

Objective: The objective of this paper is to analyze which pharmaceutical policies European countries applied during the global financial crisis.Methods: We undertook a survey with officials from public authorities for pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement of 33 European countries represented in the PPRI (Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information) network based on a questionnaire. The survey was launched in September 2010 and repeated in February 2011 to obtain updated information.Results: During the survey period from January 2010 to February 2011, 89 measures were identified in 23 of the 33 countries surveyed which were implemented to contain public medicines expenditure. Price reductions, changes in the co-payments, in the VAT rates on medicines and in the distribution margins were among the most common measures. More than a dozen countries reported measures under discussion or planned, for the remaining year 2011 and beyond. The largest number of measures were implemented in Iceland, the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Greece, Spain and Portugal, which were hit by the crisis at different times.Conclusions: Cost-containment has been an issue for high-income countries in Europe – no matter if hit by the crisis or not. In recent months, changes in pharmaceutical policies were reported from 23 European countries. Measures which can be implemented rather swiftly (e.g. price cuts, changes in co-payments and VAT rates on medicines) were among the most frequent measures. While the “crisis countries” (e.g. Baltic states, Greece, Spain) reacted with a bundle of measures, reforms in other countries (e.g. Poland, Germany) were not directly linked to the crisis, but also aimed at containing public spending. Since further reforms are under way, we recommend that the monitoring exercise is continued.

Key points for Decision Makers: European countries apply different pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies. These policies are frequently assessed against their financial consequences and their ability to contain costs but less so in terms of access to medicines. Policies should be accompanied by regular evaluations, facilitated by the use of the appropriate methodology and access to the relevant data. There appears to be a need for additional changes beyond traditional pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies. Collaborative approaches (e.g. between countries or between regulatory authorities, pricing and reimbursement agencies) and more transparency in terms of real medicine prices, R+D costs and medicines in the pipeline are considered as possible pathways for the future. AbstractThe paper discusses pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies in European countries with regard to their ability to ensure affordable access to medicines. A frequently applied pricing policy is external price referencing. While it provides some benchmark for policy-makers and has shown to be able to generate savings, it may also contribute to delay in product launch in countries where medicine prices are low. Value-based pricing has been proposed as a policy that promotes access while rewarding useful innovation, however implementing it has proven quite challenging. For high-priced medicines, managed-entry agreements are increasingly used. These agreements allow policy-makers to manage uncertainty and obtain lower prices. They can also facilitate earlier market access in case of limited evidence about added therapeutic value of the medicine. However, these agreements raise transparency concerns due to the confidentiality clause. Tendering as used in the 2 hospital and offpatent outpatient sectors has proven to reduce medicine prices but it requires a robust framework and appropriate design with clear strategic goals in order to prevent shortages. These pricing and reimbursement policies are supplemented by the widespread use of Health Technology Assessment to inform decision-making, and by strategies to improve the uptake of generics, and also biosimilars. While European countries have been implementing a set of policy options, there is a lack of thorough impact assessments of several pricing and reimbursement policies on affordable access. Increased cooperation between authorities, experience sharing, and improving transparency on price information, including the disclosure of confidential discounts, are opportunities to address current challenges.3

BackgroundIn response to the global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a Global Action Plan that includes a voluntary medicines target of 80% availability and affordability of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease both in public and private health facilities. Reliable measures of medicines availability are needed to track progress towards meeting this target. The results of three studies measuring the availability of medicines for hypertension and diabetes conducted in Tanzania in 2012–2013 were compared to assess the consistency of the results across the studies.MethodsAvailability was defined by observation of the medicine (no minimum quantity) on the day of the survey. The three studies involved 24, 107 and 1297 health facilities. Estimates of the availability of medicines for hypertension and diabetes were compared for medicines availability overall, by managing authority (government, mission/faith-based, private-for-profit), by facility level (hospital, health centre, dispensary) and by setting (urban, rural).ResultsComparisons of the availability of medicines were limited by differences in the definitions of the medicines and the classifications of the facilities surveyed. Metformin was variously reported as available in 33%, 39%, 46%, and 57% of facilities. Glibenclamide availability ranged from 19% to 52%. One study reported low levels of insulin availability (9-16% depending on insulin type) compared to 34% in a second study. Captopril (or angiotensin converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor) availability ranged from 13% to 48%while availability of calcium channel blockers was 29% to 57% and beta-blockers 15% to 50%. Trends were similar across studies with lower availability in government compared to mission or private facilities, in dispensary and health centres compared to hospitals, and in rural compared to urban facilities.ConclusionsAll three studies showed suboptimal availability of NCD medicines, however the estimates of availability differed. Regular monitoring using reproducible methods and measuring key medicines must replace ad-hoc studies, small selected samples and differences in definitions. Low and middle-income countries need to implement monitoring and evaluation systems to track progress towards meeting the NCD medicines target and to inform country-level interventions to improve access to NCD medicines.

No abstract

No abstract