scholarly journals Strategies that delay or prevent the timely availability of affordable generic drugs in the United States

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (11) ◽  
pp. 1398-1402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Jones ◽  
Michael A. Carrier ◽  
Richard T. Silver ◽  
Hagop Kantarjian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Timely Manner ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
World Markets

Abstract High cancer drug prices are influenced by the availability of generic cancer drugs in a timely manner. Several strategies have been used to delay the availability of affordable generic drugs into the United States and world markets. These include reverse payment or pay-for-delay patent settlements, authorized generics, product hopping, lobbying against cross-border drug importation, buying out the competition, and others. In this forum, we detail these strategies and how they can be prevented.

scholarly journals Cancer Drugs: An International Comparison of Postlicensing Price Inflation

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. e538-e542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Savage ◽  
Sarah Mahmoud ◽  
Yogin Patel ◽  
Hagop Kantarjian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Price Inflation ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Price Increases

Purpose: The cost of cancer drugs forms a rising proportion of health care budgets worldwide. A number of studies have examined international comparisons of initial cost, but there is little work on postlicensing price increases. To examine this, we compared cancer drug prices at initial sale and subsequent price inflation in the United States and United Kingdom and also reviewed relevant price control mechanisms. Methods: The 10 top-selling cancer drugs were selected, and their prices at initial launch and in 2015 were compared. Standard nondiscounted prices were obtained from the relevant annual copies of the RED BOOK and the British National Formulary. Results: At initial marketing, prices were on average 42% higher in the United States than in the United Kingdom. After licensing in the United States, all 10 drugs had price rises averaging an overall annual 8.8% (range, 1.4% to 24.1%) increase. In comparison, in the United Kingdom, six drugs had unchanged prices, two had decreased prices, and two had modest price increases. The overall annual increase in the United Kingdom was 0.24%. Conclusion: Cancer drug prices are rising substantially, both at their initial marketing price and, in the United States, at postlicensing prices. In the United Kingdom, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, an agreement between the government and the pharmaceutical industry, controls health care costs while allowing a return on investment and funds for research. The increasing costs of cancer drugs are approaching the limits of sustainability, and a similar government-industry agreement may allow stability for both health care provision and the pharmaceutical industry in the United States.

Continental Divide? The Attitudes of US and Canadian Oncologists on the Costs, Cost-Effectiveness, and Health Policies Associated With New Cancer Drugs

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (27) ◽  
pp. 4149-4153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R. Berry ◽  
Chaim M. Bell ◽  
Peter A. Ubel ◽  
William K. Evans ◽  
Eric Nadler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Effective Treatments

Purpose Oncologists in the United States and Canada work in different health care systems, but physicians in both countries face challenges posed by the rising costs of cancer drugs. We compared their attitudes regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of medications and related health policy. Methods Survey responses of a random sample of 1,355 United States and 238 Canadian medical oncologists (all outside of Québec) were compared. Results Response rate was 59%. More US oncologists (67% v 52%; P < .001) favor access to effective treatments regardless of cost, while more Canadians favor access to effective treatments only if they are cost-effective (75% v 58%; P < .001). Most (84% US, 80% Canadian) oncologists state that patient out-of-pocket costs influence their treatment recommendations, but less than half the respondents always or frequently discuss the costs of treatments with their patients. The majority of oncologists favor more use of cost-effectiveness data in coverage decisions (80% US, 69% Canadian; P = .004), but fewer than half the oncologists in both countries feel well equipped to use cost-effectiveness information. Majorities of oncologists favor government price controls (57% US, 68% Canadian; P = .01), but less than half favor more cost-sharing by patients (29% US, 41% Canadian; P = .004). Oncologists in both countries prefer to have physicians and nonprofit agencies determine whether drugs provide good value. Conclusion Oncologists in the United States and Canada generally have similar attitudes regarding cancer drug costs, cost-effectiveness, and associated policies, despite practicing in different health care systems. The results support providing education to help oncologists in both countries use cost-effectiveness information and discuss drug costs with their patients.

Clinical benefit and prices of cancer drugs in the United States and Europe.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6638-6638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Noëlle Vokinger ◽  
Thomas J Hwang ◽  
Ariadna Tibau Martorell ◽  
Thomas J Rosemann ◽  
Aaron S Kesselheim
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us

6638 Background: Given rising cancer drug costs, Medicare recently proposed to tie some US drug prices to average prices paid by comparable countries. To understand the potential scope of this policy, we assessed differences in cancer drug prices in the US and selected European countries. We also evaluated the correlation between drug prices and their clinical benefit, as measured by two value frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 (ASCO VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.1 (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We identified all new drugs for adult solid and hematologic cancers, approved by the FDA from 2009-2017 and that have also been approved by the EMA by December 31, 2018. US average sales prices (and if not available, wholesale acquisition costs) were extracted as of February 1, 2019, and compared to comparable currency-adjusted ex-factory drug costs in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland. ASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were assessed for pivotal trials supporting solid tumor drugs; in case of multiple trials, we focused on the highest score. Consistent with the developers of the rating scales, “high benefit” was defined as scores of A-B (neo/adjuvant setting) and 4-5 (palliative setting) on the ESMO-MCBS scale and scores≥45 on the ASCO VF. Linear regression models and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and were used to assess the association between drug prices and benefit scores. Results: The study cohort included 63 drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA during the study period. 46 (73%) were approved for solid tumors, and 17 (27%) were approved for hematologic malignancies. Overall, median cancer drug prices in included European countries were 52% (interquartile range: 37-72%) lower than US prices. There was no statistically significant association between monthly treatment cost and ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS scores in any country. There was also no association between price differential between US and median European drug prices and either ASCO-VF (P = 0.599) or ESMO-MBCS (P = 0.321) scores. Conclusions: Cancer drug prices in the US were significantly higher than in the compared European countries. Drug prices of cancer drugs were not associated with clinical benefit in the US or in European countries.

High Cancer Drug Prices in the United States: Reasons and Proposed Solutions

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e208-e211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagop Kantarjian ◽  
David Steensma ◽  
Judit Rius Sanjuan ◽  
Adam Elshaug ◽  
Donald Light
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
Care System

The increase in drug prices poses questions: Are cancer drug prices too high? Are they hurting patients and our health care system? And can we do something about it? The answer to each is affirmative.

OSTEOPOROSIS DRUGS MARKETED IN THE UNITED STATES: GENERIC COMPETITION, PRICING STRUCTURE, AND DISPERSION AMONG PAYERS

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 385-392
Author(s):  
Bander Balkhi ◽  
Enrique Seoane-Vazquez ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Monguio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Acquisition Cost ◽  
Market Entry ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Drug Acquisition ◽  
Drug Acquisition Cost ◽  
The United States ◽  
Generic Competition ◽  
Drug Prices

Background: Despite the cost of pharmaceuticals, studies assessing prices of osteoporosis drugs are lacking. This study examined trends in prices of osteoporosis drugs in the United States in the period 1988–2014, assessed pricing structure of osteoporosis drugs, and evaluated price trends before and after generic drugs market entry.Methods: Data were derived from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the RedBook, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Descriptive statistics and segmented linear regression analyses were performed.Results: In the period 1988–2014, osteoporosis drug prices increased faster than the inflation. The average wholesale price (AWP) of generic products at market entry represented 90 percent of the AWP for the corresponding brand. Prices of brand products continued to increase after generic entry. Drug prices showed a significant variation when compared with the brand AWP. The brand wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) was typically set at 83.3 percent of the AWP. Community pharmacies acquired osteoporosis brand drugs at a median of 80.5 percent of the brand AWP. Significant reductions in brand AWP were observed for Medicare Part B (78.5 percent of the brand AWP), generic National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (33.7 percent), and FSS (22.5 percent).Conclusions: There are significant differences in the manufacturer prices, pharmacy acquisition costs and reimbursement rates of osteoporosis drugs. Pharmaceutical companies listed prices are higher than the pharmacy actual estimated acquisitions costs, and the prices used for reimbursement to providers. Generic drugs entry significantly drives down prices; still, prices of branded drugs facing generic competition continued to increase after generic market entry.

Launch prices and price developments of cancer drugs in the United States and Europe.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2006-2006
Author(s):  
Kerstin Noëlle Vokinger ◽  
Paola Daniore ◽  
ChangWon C Lee ◽  
Aaron S Kesselheim ◽  
Thomas J Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Price Changes ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us ◽  
Over Time

2006 Background: Cancer drug costs are rising in the US and Europe. While drug manufacturers set prices without restriction in the US, European countries have regulations that allow national authorities to directly negotiate drug prices at launch and over time. We analyzed and compared the launch prices and price developments of cancer drugs in the US, Germany, Switzerland and England. Methods: We identified new drugs indicated to treat solid tumors in adults that were FDA-approved between 2009 and 2019 and had also been approved by the EMA and Swissmedic by 31 December 2019. Launch prices and post-launch price changes as of 1 January 2020 were extracted and adjusted to average sales prices for monthly treatment costs in the US and compared to comparable currency-adjusted ex-factory monthly treatment costs in Germany, Switzerland, and England. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to infer yearly trends in launch prices and post-launch price changes across the countries. Results: The study cohort included 42 drugs for solid tumors, of which 40 (95%) drugs were first approved in the US compared to Germany and England, and 41 (98%) to Switzerland. Average launch prices for monthly treatment costs per patient were $15,178 in the US vs $7,049 in Germany, $7,421 in Switzerland and $8,176 in England, i.e., 215% (interquartile range [IQR] 263%-187%), 205% (IQR 202%-185%) and 186% (IQR 166%-189%) higher in the US compared to Germany, Switzerland and England respectively. Post-launch prices of 36 (86%), 40 (95%), and 38 (90%) drugs decreased over time with total savings of monthly treatment costs for all drugs in the study cohort of $86,744, $44,936, and $1744 in Germany, Switzerland, and England respectively. By contrast, prices of 8 (19%) drugs decreased, while 34 (81%) increased post-launch in the US with total additional expenses of $128,192 for monthly treatment costs. Conclusions: Launch prices for cancer drugs are far higher in the US than in Germany, Switzerland, or England. These price disparities continue to increase substantially after market entry since cancer drug prices, in general, decrease over time in Europe and increase in the US. Spending on cancer drugs could be reduced in the US if it adopted the principles used to more effectively negotiate drug prices in Europe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document