PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 18, Supplement 1, pp 47–57 | Cite as

The Increasing Necessity for Market-Based Pharmaceutical Prices

  • John E. Calfee
Review Article

Abstract

In most markets, research and development are driven by expected prices, and those prices are determined mainly by consumer willingness to pay for the potential benefits of new products. In the pharmaceutical market, however, the dominant role of government and tax-induced insurance has tended to create a wedge between expected prices and consumer willingness to pay to cure or prevent disease. This distorts investment decisions, tending to cause underinvestment. Recent developments have expanded this gap. The greatly enhanced efficiency of pharmaceutical research has permitted the development of products that provide long term prevention and quality-of-life improvements. While some of these new products can delay or obviate chronic conditions of old age, they do not necessarily reduce healthcare costs (at least not in the short or medium run). Most of the massive benefits of the new research streams are therefore pure consumer benefits, with little benefit for the acute care activities that are the core functions of European and American healthcare delivery or payment systems.

These new products are very expensive, despite increased research efficiency, because that efficiency has permitted the industry to address difficult problems that had previously been impervious to solution. To serve consumers well, healthcare providers would have to increase expenditures and prices or taxes to cover these added pharmaceutical costs. But the new products are likely to be perceived mainly as cost increases. The effect is that healthcare entities will become less suited to serve as agents for consumers. One reason is that the most natural, reliable and widely used metrics for evaluating new drugs — healthcare savings and acute care improvements — will be increasingly irrelevant. The implication is that, to a much greater extent than in the past, only market-determined prices can provide adequate signals for future pharmaceutical research investment. The failure to use market prices could deprive consumers of very large future benefits.

References

  1. 1.
    Calfee JE. Prices, markets, and the pharmaceutical revolution. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richmond MH. Human genomics: prospects for health care and public policy. London: Pharmaceutical Partners for Better Healthcare, 1999Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Impact report. Vol. 1, Boston, Jun 1999Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiMasi JA. Trends in drug development costs, times, risks. Drug Inf J 1995; 29 (2): 75-84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grabowski HG, Vernon J The distribution of sales revenues from pharmaceutical innovation. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18 Suppl. 1: 21-32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eichenwald K, Kolata G. Cost-cutting forges new drug-testing industry. New York Times 1999: May 16Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eichenwald K, Kolata G. Drug trials hide conflicts for doctors. New York Times 1999; May 16Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eichenwald K, Kolata G. Research for hire: a doctor’s drug studies turn into fraud. New York Times 1999; May 17Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller A. Trial run: small practices can participate in clinical trials – here’s how. Am Med News 1999; Sep 27Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arnst C. Commentary: the war against cancer needs new recruits. Business Week 1999; May 31Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pitt B, Waters D, Brown WV, et al. Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy compared with angioplasty in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1999; 341 (2): 70-6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lean MEJ, Han TS, Seidell JC. Impairment of health and quality of life using new US Federal Guidelines for the identification of obesity. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 837-43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Changing disease definitions: implications for disease prevalence. Analysis of the 3rd National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Eff Clin Pract 1999; 2 (2): 76-86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown D. Medicine’s growth curve: healthy patients as doctors treat risk as a disease, cost-benefit issues arise. Washington Post 1999; Oct 22Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thompson D, Edelsberg J, Colditz GA, et al. Lifetime health and economic consequences of obesity. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159 (18): 2177-83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williamson DF. Pharmacotherapy for obesity. JAMA1999; 281 (3): 278-80Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serdula MK, Mokdad AH, Williamson DF, et al. Prevalence of attempting weight loss and strategies for controlling weight. JAMA 1999; 282 (14): 1353-8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ebrahim S, Smith GD. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of multiple risk factor interventions for preventing coronary heart disease. BMJ 1997; 314: 1666-74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    American Medical Association. Depression seriously undertreated. Conclusions of a National Depressive and Manic Depressive Association Consensus Panel. Sci News Update 1997; Jan 22Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leape LL. Translating medical science into medical practice: do we need a national standards board? JAMA 1997; 273: 1535-37Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allen JE. A feeling deep in your bones. National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Study. Los Angeles Times 1999; Feb 22Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cleeman JI, Lenfant C. The National Cholesterol Education Program: progress and prospects. JAMA1998; 280: 2099-104Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    American College of Cardiology. Cholesterol-cutting drugs go unused. New York Times 1999; Mar 9Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, et al. Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1957-63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zuger A. Challenge of patch drugs: getting under the skin. New York Times 1999; Aug 17Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grady D. Experiment seeks to protect ovaries from cancer treatment. New York Times 1999; Oct 26Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Langreth R. Merck discovery may lead to helpful pills for diabetics. Wall Street Journal 1999; May 7Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Calfee JE, Winston C. The consumer welfare effects of liability for pain and suffering: an exploratory analysis. Brookings papers on economic activity. Microeconomics 1993; 1: 133-74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peveler R, George C, Kinmonth A-L, et al. Effect of antidepressant drug counselling and information leaflets on adherence to drug treatment in primary care: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 1999; 319: 612-15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Langreth R. After failures, diabetes drugs seem to near the end of the road. Wall Street Journal 1999; Jan 25Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Langreth R. Pfizer to halt Alond development, its second big setback this year. Wall Street Journal 1999; Aug 13Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kolata G. The fat war: hope amid the harm. New York Times 1999; Oct 31Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Langreth R. Drug firms are making progress in an effort to slow alzheimer’s. Wall Street Journal 1999; Oct 22Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lynch MC. The fog of commerce: the failure of long-term oil market forecasting. Center for International Studies, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts Sep, 1992Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meterissian S. Biochip technology opens the door for researchers to tailor chemotherapy to the genetic makeup of a tumor. American College of Surgeons Convention; 1999, Oct 10-15: San Francisco, Press releaseGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    New chips off the block. The Economist 1999; Oct 23Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barents Group LLC (1999) Factors Affecting the Growth of Prescription Drug Expenditures, prepared for the National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Educational Foundation, Washington DC, Jul 9, 1999Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Health Industry Association of America, Prescription Drugs: Cost and Coverage Trends, Washington DC, Sep 1999Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 1999: 49Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Katan MB. Review of Betteridge DJ, editor. Lipids: current perspectives. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 19Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ross SD, Allen IE, Connelly JE, et al. Clinical outcomes in statin treatment trials: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 1793-802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, et al. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 813-8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Berndt ER, Finkelstein SN, Greenberg PE, et al. Workplace performance effects from chronic depression and its treatment. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 511-35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kane RL, Garrard J. Changing physician prescribing practices: regulation vs education. JAMA 1994; 271: 393-4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999; 282: 1458-65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Larkin H. Not-in-practice guidelines. Am Med News 1999Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ramsay LE, Williams B, Johnston GD, et al. British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 1999: summary. BMJ 1999; 319: 630-5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kohlmeier L. Osteoporosis update: prevention and treatment. Drug Benefit Trends 1999; 11: 43-44, 47-50Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pushing ethical pharmaceuticals direct to the public [editorial]. Lancet 1998; 351: 28Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dummit LA. Government Accounting Office (GAO), Sep 28, 1999 testimony of Laura A. Dummit before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Committee on Commerce, House of RepresentativesGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Health Industry Association of America (HIAA). Prescription drugs: cost and coverage trends. Sep 1999, citing data from the Health Care Finance Agency (of the US Department of Health and Human Services)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kaufman M. Pricey pills: get ready for sticker shock. As health plans to try to find ways to pass along costs, be prepared for higher premiums and bigger co-payments on some drugs. Washington Post 1999; Nov 9: Z14Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Strongin RJ. Providing outpatient prescription drugs through medicare: can we afford to? Can we afford not to? National Health Policy Forum, George Washington University, Washington DC; Mar 1999: 11Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Berndt E. Uniform pharmaceutical pricing: an economic analysis. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1994Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pear R. Drug benefits up to $2500 are in plan for Medicare. New York Times 1999; June 29Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Calfee JE. Price controls are a prescription for disaster. Wall Street Journal 1999; Jul 22Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Drug costs higher than expected. Am Med News 1999; Aug 9Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tuffs A. German doctors are unhappy about drugs budget. BMJ 1999; 319: 536APubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tuffs A. German government breaks off talks with doctors. BMJ 1999; 319: 874Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Danzon PM. Pharmaceutical price regulation: national policies versus global interests. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1997Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Goozner M. The making and selling of a star drug. Chicago Tribune 1999; May 24Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Christie B. Statins being prescribed for those least in need. BMJ 1999; 318: 827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hoff J. Medicare private contraction: paternalism or autonomy? Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1998Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hilzenrath DS. Patients face a limit on benefits for therapy. Washington Post 1999; May 10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • John E. Calfee
    • 1
  1. 1.American Enterprise InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations