Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Therapeutic Reference Pricing on Innovation in Cardiovascular Medicine

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Therapeutic reference pricing (TRP) places medicines to treat the same medical condition into groups or ‘clusters’ with a single common reimbursed price. Underpinning this economic measure is an implicit assumption that the products included in the cluster have an equivalent effect on a typical patient with this disease. ‘Truly innovative’ products can be exempt from inclusion in the cluster. This increasingly common approach to cost containment allocates products into one of two categories — truly innovative or therapeutically equivalent.

This study examines the implications of TRP against the step-wise evolution of drugs for cardiovascular conditions over the past 50 years. It illustrates the complex interactions between advances in understanding of cellular and molecular disease mechanisms, diagnostic techniques, treatment concepts, and the synthesis, testing and commercialisation of products. It confirms the highly unpredictable and incremental nature of the innovation process. Medical progress in terms of improvement in patient outcomes over the long-term depends on the cumulative effect of year after year of painstaking incremental advances. It shows that the parallel processes of advances in scientific knowledge and the industrial ‘investment-innovative cycle’ involve highly developed sets of complementary capabilities and resources. A framework is developed to assess the impact of TRP upon research and development investment decisions and the development of therapeutic classes.

We conclude that a simple categorisation of products as either ‘truly innovative’ or ‘therapeutically equivalent’ is inconsistent with the incremental processes of innovation and the resulting differentiated product streams revealed by our analysis. Widespread introduction of TRP would probably have prematurely curtailed development of many incremental innovations that became the preferred ‘product of choice’ by physicians for some indications and patients in managing the incidence of cardiovascular disease.

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. Abel-Smith B, Mossialos E. Cost containment and healthcare reform: a study of the European Union, Health Policy 1994; 28: 89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. London School of Economics. EU, WHO Observatory; worldwide survey on pharmaceutical price and reimbursement systems [online]. Available from URL: http://pharmacos.eudra.org [Accessed 15 October 2005]

  3. Freemantle N, Hill S. Evaluating pharmaceuticals for health policy and reimbursement. Oxford: BMJ Books/Blackwell, 2004

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Frank RG, Salkever DS. Generic entry and the price of pharmaceuticals. J Econ Manag Strat 1997; 6: 75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mrazek M, Mossialos E. Increasing demand while decreasing costs of generic medicines. Lancet 2000; 356: 1784–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Long J. IMS presentation to World Wholesalers Association conference, Shanghai, China, 22–24 September 2004

  7. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Brand loyalty, entry and price competition in pharmaceuticals after the 1984 Drug Act. J Law Econ 1992; 35: 331–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Longer patents for increased generic competition in the US: the Waxman-Hatch Act after one decade. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 Suppl. 2: 110–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Selke G. Reference price systems in the European Community. In: Mossialos E, Ranos C, Abel-Smith B, editors. Cost containment: pricing and financing of pharmaceuticals in the European Community: the policy makers view. Athens: LSE Health and Pharmetrica SA, 1994: 147–60

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lopez-Casasnovas G, Jonsson B, editors. Reference pricing and pharmaceutical policy — perspectives on economics and innovation series, Barcelona: Springer Verlag Iberica, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lopez-Casasnovas G, Puig-Junoy J. In: Lopez-Casasnovas G, Jonsson B, editors. Chapter 1: Reference pricing and pharmaceutical policy — perspectives on economics and innovation series. Barcelona: Springer Verlag Iberica, 2001: 1–41

  12. Giuliani G, Selke G, Garattini L. The German experience in reference pricing. Health Policy 1998; 46: 73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Allegemeine Ortskrankenkassen Annual Statistics; 1990–2000. Berlin: Germany

  14. Vos CM. The 1996 price and reimbursement policy in the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 Suppl. 2 75–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ekelund M. Generic entry before and after reference prices. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, working paper mimeo, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clausen J. Financing of prescription drugs in Denmark. Presented to The Third European Conference on Health Economics; 20–22 August, 1995, Stockholm, Sweden

  17. Woodfield AE. Reference pricing: theory and evidence from New Zealand. In: Lopez-Casasnovas G, Jonsson B, editors. Reference pricing and pharmaceutical policy — perspectives on economics and innovation series. Barcelona: Springer Verlag Iberica, 2001: 127–44

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sweeney K. Australian pharmaceutical pricing in a global context, Working paper 19, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cfses.com [Accessed 21 November 2005]

  19. McArthur WJ. Patient outcomes and public health consequences of reference pricing. In: Lopez-Casasnovas G, Jonsson B, editors. Reference pricing and pharmaceutical policy — perspectives on economics and innovation series, Barcelona: Springer Verlag Iberica, 2001: 145–60

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fattore G. Cost containment and reforms in the Italian NHS. In: Mossialos E, LeGrand J, editors. Health care and cost containment in the EU. Aldershot (UK): Ashgate, 1999: 102–122. See also Italian Ministry of Health Department for the Protection of Human Health, Directorate for the Evaluation of Medical Product and Pharmacovigilance, Decree Law ‘Reclassification of Medicinal Products pursuant to article 9, subsection 2 and 3 of law of 8th August 2002, No 178’. Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grubert N. The impact of reference pricing in Europe. Waltham (MA): Spectrum, Decision Resources, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jonnson B. Reference pricing: central economic and policy issues. In: Lopez-Casasnovas G, Jonsson B, editors. Reference pricing and pharmaceutical policy — perspectives on economics and innovation series. Barcelona: Springer Verlag Iberica, 2001: 80–5

    Google Scholar 

  23. Danzon PM. Reference pricing: theory and evidence. In: Lopez-Casasnovas G, Jonsson B, editors. Reference pricing and pharmaceutical policy — perspectives on economics and innovation series. Barcelona: Springer Verlag Iberica, 2001: 86–126

    Google Scholar 

  24. Institut fur Qualitat und Wirtschaftlichkeitswesen [online]. Available from URL: http://www.IQWiG.de [Accessed 3 December 2005]

  25. Survey of patient co-payment levels by national pharma industry associations. Brussels: EFPIA Report, 2001

  26. Dickson M, Redwood H. Pharmaceutical reference prices: how do they work in practice? Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14(5): 471–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Landau R, Achilladelis B, Scriabine A. Pharmaceutical innovation. Philadelphia (PA): Chemical Heritage Foundation, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. A new look at the returns and risks to pharmaceutical R&D. Manag Sci 1990; 36(7): 804–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Grabowski HG. Are the economics of pharmaceutical R&D changing? Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 Suppl. 2: 15–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pharma pipelines. Lehman Brothers, Global Equity Research-Pharmaceuticals, 2003, London: United Kingdom

  31. Danzon PM, Kim JD. The life cycle of pharmaceuticals: a cross-national perspective. London: Office of Health Economics monograph, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  32. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003; 22(2): 151–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gelijns AC. Capturing the unexpected benefits of medical research. N Engl J Med 1998; 339(10): 693–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. DiMasi JA, Paquette L. The economics of follow on drug R&D — trends in entry rates and timing of development. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 Suppl. 2: 1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahlquist RP. A study of adrenotropic receptors. Am J Physiol 1948; 153: 586–600

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Black JW, Duncan WA, Shanks RG. Comparison of some properties of pronethalol and propranolol. Br J Pharmacol Chemother 1965; 25: 577–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lands AM, Arnold A, McAuliff JA, et al. Differentiation of receptor systems activated by sympathomimetic amines. Nature 1967; 214: 597–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rolf-Smith S, Kendall MJ, Worthington DJ, et al. Can the biochemical responses to a beta 2-adrenoceptor stimulant be used to assess selectivity of beta-adrenoceptor blockers? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 16: 557–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Head A, Kendall MJ, Maxwell S. Exercise metabolism during one hour of treadmill walking, while taking high and low doses of propranolol, metoprolol or placebo. Clin Cardiol 1995: 18: 335–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Svedmyr N. Fentorol: a beta 2-adrenergic agonist for use in asthma; pharmacology, pharmokinetics, clinical efficacy and adverse effects. Pharmacotherapy 1985; 5: 109–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mark AL. Sympathetic dysregulation in heart failure; mechanisms and therapy. Clin Cardiol 1995; 18 Suppl. I: I–3–I–8

    Google Scholar 

  42. CIBIS Investigators and Committees. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II) a randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 9–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Haussler B, Gothe H, Reschke P, et al. ‘Me too’ drugs on the market: occurrence, value and impact on health insurers, Working paper. Berlin: Institut fur Gesundheits und Sozialforschung, 2004. Also available at: lesgaliesg.de [Accessed 10 December 2005]

    Google Scholar 

  44. Achilladelis B, Antonakis N. The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Res Policy 2001; 30: 535–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ringer S. Concerning the action of calcium, potassium, and sodium salts upon the eel’s heart and upon the skeletal muscles of the frog. J Physiol 1887; 8: 15–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Byon KY, Fleckenstein A. Parallel influence of isometric tension development and O2 consumption of isolated papillary muscles under the influence of Ca ions, adrenaline, isoproteranol and organic Ca antagonists (iproveratril, D 600, prenylamine). Pflugers Arch 1969; 312(1): R8–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Joshi PI, Dalal JJ, Ruttley MS, et al. Nifedipine and left ventricular function in beta-blocked patients, Br Heart J 1981;,45(4): 457–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Rinkenberger RL, Prystowsky EN, Heger JJ, et al. Effects of intravenous and chronic oral verapamil administration in patients with supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Circulation 1980; 62: 996–1010

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Kang PM, Landou AJ, Eberhardt RT, et al. Angiotensin II receptor antagonists: a new approach to blockade of the reninangiotensin system. Am Heart J 1994; 127: 1388–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 1429–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yusef S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril on cardiovascular events in high risk patients: the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigation. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 145–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. A co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate. Report from the Committee of Principal Investigators. Br Heart J 1978; 40(10): 1069–118

  53. Brown MS, Goldstein JL. Receptor mediated control of cholesterol metabolism. Science 1976; 191: 150–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383–9

    Google Scholar 

  55. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20 536 high risk individuals: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 306: 7–22

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sever PS, Dahlof B, Poulter NR, et al., for the ASCOT investigators. Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower than average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes trial — Lipid lowering arm (ASCOT-LLA); a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361: 1149–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, et al., on behalf of the CARDS investigators. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS); multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 685–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Fagerberg J, Mowery C, Nelson RR, editors. The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  59. Comroe JH. Retrospectoscope: insights into medical discovery. Menlo Park (CA): Von Gehr Press, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wells N. Innovative chemical extensions — the economic basis of pharmaceutical progress. London: Office of Health Economics monograph, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jonsson B, Ekelund M. Reference pricing and innovation in medicine. In: Lopez-Casasnovas G, Jonsson B, editors. Reference pricing and pharmaceutical policy — perspectives on economics and innovation series. Barcelona: Springer Verlag Iberica, 2001: 63–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial College Medical School, London, UK

    Desmond Sheridan

  2. Health Management Group, Tanaka Business School, Imperial College, London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW72AZ, UK

    Jim Attridge

Authors
  1. Desmond Sheridan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jim Attridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jim Attridge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sheridan, D., Attridge, J. The Impact of Therapeutic Reference Pricing on Innovation in Cardiovascular Medicine. PharmacoEconomics 24 (Suppl 2), 35–54 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624002-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624002-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation