Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reimbursement and promoting additional R&D in the pharmaceutical sector: An analytic framework

  • Artículo de Opinión
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Spanish Research Articles

Abstract

In publicly funded health care systems decisions have to be taken about whether or not pharmaceuticals should be reimbursed and included in the budget-constrained public insurance system. Within this context, an iterative framework could be used to distinguish the conceptually separate decisions of whether a pharmaceutical should be reimbursed in a specific moment in time from the decision of whether to fund and promote additional R&D in a therapeutic area. Within this framework, decision analysis could be used to determine (1) whether a particular pharmaceutical should be reimbursed in a specific moment in time; and (2) the specific reimbursement for different patient groups. In other words, the presented framework links reimbursement decisions and future R&D investment to therapeutic value of pharmaceuticals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hancher L. Regulating for competition: government, law and the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom and France. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kremer M. A mechanism for encouraging innovation. Harvard Institute for International Development Discussion Paper, no. 533, May 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Loeb M, Magat WA. A decentralized method for utility regulation. Journal of Law and Economics 1979; 22: 399–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Laffont JJ, Tirole J. A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Guell R. Haggling for a patent: what a government would have to pay for prescription drug patents. Health Economics 1997; 6: 179–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith S. The next ten years of health spending: what does the future hold? Health Affairs 1998; 17(5): 128–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fuchs V. The health sector’s share of the gross national product. Science 1990; 247: 534–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Newhouse JP. Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? Journal of economic perspectives 1992; 6: 3–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cutler D, Richardson E. Measuring the health of the US population. Brookings Papers. Microeconomics; 217–71.

  10. Eddy D. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Int Med 1990; 113: 214–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brook R. Does free care improve adult’s health? Results from a randomised controlled trial. New England Journal of Medicine 1983; 309(24): 26–1434.

    Google Scholar 

  12. McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Journal of American Medical Association 1994; 272(11): 859–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of New pharmaceuticals under condition of uncertainty- When is there Sufficient Evidence? Value Health 2005; 8(4): 433–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Economics 1999; 8: 269–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Carlin BP, Louis TA, Bayes and Emperical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall: London, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. A Bayesian method for synthesizing evidence: the confidence profile method. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6: 31–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Claxton K, Neumann P, Araki, S, Weinstein M. Bayesian value of information analysis. An application to a policy model of Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2001; 17(1): 38–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Economics 1996; 5 (6): 513–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: A decision making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Phillps Z, Palmer S. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the National Health Service health technology assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2004; 31: 1–132.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drummnond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1991; 7: 561–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Claxton K, Cohen J, Neumann P. When is Evidence Sufficient? Health Affairs 2005; 24(1): 93–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Iverson GR. Bayesian Statistical Inference. Sage, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics 1999; 8: 257–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stinnett A, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertain in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Mak 1998; 18(Suppl.): S68–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fenwick E, Claxton J, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001; 10(8): 779–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Hout VA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3.

  29. Drummond M, Jonsson B, Rutten F. The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy 1997; 40: 199–215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF, Buxton MJ. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Services Research Policy 1997; 2: 26–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee. Canberra: AGPS 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Ontario: Ministry of Health 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Langley PC. Formulary submission guidelines for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and Nevada: structure, application and manufacturer responsibilities. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 211–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Earl-Slater A. Regulating the price of the UK’s drug. BMJ 1997; 314: 365–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Towse A (ed). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: what can the UK learn from Australia and Canada? London, U.K.; Office of Health Economics 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento of Economics, Universitat de Barcelona, Diagonal, 690, 08021, Barcelona, Spain

    Josep Darbà

Authors
  1. Josep Darbà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josep Darbà.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Darbà, J. Reimbursement and promoting additional R&D in the pharmaceutical sector: An analytic framework. Pharmacoecon. Span. Res. Artic. 3, 39–47 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320909

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320909

Keywords

Search

Navigation