Defining and Measuring the Affordability of New Medicines: A Systematic Review
- 379 Downloads
In many healthcare systems, affordability concerns can lead to restrictions on the use of expensive efficacious therapies. However, there does not appear to be any consensus as to the terminology used to describe affordability, or the thresholds used to determine whether new drugs are affordable.
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how affordability is defined and measured in healthcare.
MEDLINE, EMBASE and EconLit databases (2005–July 2016) were searched using terms covering affordability and budget impact, combined with definitions, thresholds and restrictions, to identify articles describing a definition of affordability with respect to new medicines. Additional definitions were identified through citation searching, and through manual searches of European health technology assessment body websites.
In total, 27 definitions were included in the review. Of these, five definitions described affordability in terms of the value of a product; seven considered affordability within the context of healthcare system budgets; and 15 addressed whether products are affordable in a given country based on economic factors. However, there was little in the literature to indicate that the price of medicines is considered alongside both their value to individual patients and their budget impact at a population level.
Current methods of assessing affordability in healthcare may be limited by their focus on budget impact. A more effective approach may involve a broader perspective than is currently described in the literature, to consider the long-term benefits of a therapy and cost savings elsewhere in the healthcare system, as well as cooperation between healthcare payers and the pharmaceutical industry to develop financing models that support sustainability as well as innovation.
KeywordsHealthcare System Gross Domestic Product Oseltamivir Budget Impact Sofosbuvir
All authors designed the study, analysed the results, reviewed all draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final version for submission. Paul Overton conducted the systematic review and wrote the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This work was supported by Novartis Pharma AG (Basel, Switzerland) under the AGORA initiative (Advisory Group On Reimbursement and Access, a European Think Tank aiming to optimise access for patients to innovative treatments).
Conflict of interest
Fernando Antoñanzas, Robert Terkola and Maarten Postma have received honoraria and travel support related to this study from Novartis Pharma AG under the AGORA initiative. At the request of the AGORA Think Tank, support for the systematic review was provided by Paul Overton (Beacon Medical Communications Ltd) and Natalie Shalet (NAS Healthcare Solutions Ltd), whose organisations received project funding from Novartis Pharma AG. Maarten Postma has received research grants and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies, unrelated to this study.
All data generated during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
- 5.Kanavos P, Vandoros S, Irwin R, et al. Differences in costs of and access to pharmaceutical products in the EU, 2011. http://www.lse.ac.uk/businessAndConsultancy/LSEConsulting/pdf/pharmaceuticals.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2016.
- 7.Brockis E, Marsden G, Cole A, Devlin N. A review of NICE methods across health technology assessment programmes: differences, justifications and implications. Office of Health Economics Research Paper 16/03 2016. https://www.ohe.org/publications/review-nice-methods-across-health-technology-assessment-programmes-differences. Accessed 14 Nov 2016.
- 8.Carone GSC, Xavier A. Cost-containment policies in public pharmaceutical spending in the EU. 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2012/pdf/ecp_461_en.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2016.
- 12.NHS England. Appraisal and funding of cancer drugs from July 2016 (including the new Cancer Drugs Fund). 2016. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cdf-sop.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2016.
- 13.Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
- 18.National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
- 19.Orlewska E, Ancuta I, Anic B, et al. Access to biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. Med Science Monit. 2011;17(4):SR1–13.Google Scholar
- 21.Jørgensen J, Kefalas P. Reimbursement of licensed cell and gene therapies across the major European healthcare markets. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015;3:1–12.Google Scholar
- 22.Haute Autorité de Santé. Methods for health economic evaluation. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_2035665/en/methods-for-health-economic-evaluation. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
- 24.Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Glossary. http://www.aifa.gov.it/en/glossary/20/lettera. Accessed 22 Aug 2016.
- 26.Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Evaluating the value of new drugs and devices. 2016. http://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Slides-on-value-framework-for-website-v4-13-16.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
- 31.Jingi AM, Noubiap JJN, Onana AE, et al. Access to diagnostic tests and essential medicines for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes care: cost, availability and affordability in the west region of Cameroon. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):1–10.Google Scholar
- 36.Niëns LM, Van de Poel E, Cameron A, et al. Practical measurement of affordability: an application to medicines. 2012. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/3/10-084087/en/. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
- 38.O’Donnell O, van Doorslaer E, Wagstaff A, Lindelow M. Analyzing health equity using household survey data. 2007. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPAH/Resources/Publications/459843-1195594469249/HealthEquityFINAL.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2016.
- 41.World Health Organization. A model quality assurance system for procurement agencies. 2007. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s14866e/s14866e.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2017.
- 42.Jönsson B, Persson U, Wilking N. Innovative treatments for cancer in Europe: value, cost and access. IHE report. Lund: IHE; 2016:2. http://www.ihe.se/innovative-treatments-1.aspx. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.
- 44.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and National Health Service England. Proposals for changes to the arrangements for evaluating and funding drugs and other health technologies appraised through NICE’s technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programmes. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/our-programmes/technology-appraisals/NICE_NHSE_TA_and_HST_consultation_document.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.
- 45.Bloomberg. Bayer warns planned German price curbs may restrict drug access. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-14/bayer-warns-planned-german-price-curbs-may-restrict-drug-access. Accessed 5 Dec 2016.
- 47.Toumi M, Remuzat C, El Hammi E, et al. Current process and future path for health economic assessment of pharmaceuticals in France. J Market Access Health Policy, [S.l.], v. 3, June 2015. http://www.jmahp.net/index.php/jmahp/article/view/27902. Accessed 25 Jan 2017.
- 48.PHARMAC. Fact sheet #4: making funding decisions. 2016. https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/assets/factsheet-04-making-funding-decisions.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
- 49.London School of Economics. Tender loving care? Purchasing medicines for continuing therapeutic improvement and better health outcomes. 2016. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67824/. Accessed 10 Nov 2016.
- 52.Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Briefing: cost of developing a new drug. 2014. http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/Tufts_CSDD_briefing_on_RD_cost_study_-_Nov_18,_2014..pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2017.
- 62.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Europena Union. Health at a glance: Europe 2014. doi: 10.1787/health_glance_eur-2014-en. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.