OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate how health technology assessment methods can be used to support Medicare\'s price negotiations for apixaban and rivaroxaban.
METHODS: Following the statutory outline of evidence that will be considered by Medicare, we conducted a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses, and decision analyses to evaluate the health outcomes and costs associated with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin and dabigatran for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Our methods inform discussions about the therapeutic impact of apixaban and rivaroxaban and suggest price premiums above their therapeutic alternatives over a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds.
RESULTS: Network meta-analyses found apixaban resulted in a lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin and dabigatran and a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism compared with warfarin but not compared with dabigatran. Rivaroxaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism versus warfarin but not dabigatran, and there was no difference in major bleeding. Decision-analytic modeling of apixaban suggested annual price premiums up to $4350 above the price of warfarin and up to $530 above the price for dabigatran at cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200 000 per equal value of life-years gained. Analyses of rivaroxaban showed an annual price premium of up to $3920 above warfarin and no premium above that paid for dabigatran.
CONCLUSIONS: Although health technology assessment is typically performed near the time of regulatory approval, with modifications, we produced comparative clinical and relative cost-effectiveness findings to help guide negotiations on a \"fair\" price for drugs on the market for over a decade.

Over 80% of people living with HIV in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) take first-line TDF/XTC/DTG (TLD). Due to hard-fought activism, in >100 LMICs TLD now costs under $45pppy under Voluntary License. With final DTG patents expiring by 2029, generic TLD will soon be available globally. We identify seven critical benchmarks underpinning TLDs success which novel ART should now meet, and an eighth for which novel ART should aim. These are superior efficacy; a high genetic barrier to resistance; safety in hepatitis B coinfection; favourable drug-drug interaction profiles including with antimycobacterials; efficacy in HIV-2; safety in pregnancy, long-acting formulation availability and affordable pricing from the outset. We illustrate when generic TLD will become available worldwide and compare this with trial programmes and approval timelines for two case-study novel ART combinations: islatravir/doravirine and cabotegravir/rilpivirine. We demonstrate that currently these regimens and trial programmes will not meet key benchmarks required to compete with TLD.

Health authorities use value-based pricing models to determine the value of innovative drugs and to establish a price. Pharmaceutical companies prefer value-based pricing over cost-based pricing. It is ambiguous whether value-based pricing has the same meaning to these stakeholders. We aimed to identify the elements that attribute to value-based pricing of innovative drugs from a pharmaceutical industry\'s perspective and as possible starting point for (value-based) contracting of drugs. We performed a scoping review of publications available in scientific databases with terms such as \'value-based pricing\', \'pharmacoeconomics\', \'drug cost\', \'innovative drug\' and \'drug therapy\'. We included 31 publications, covering value elements of innovative drugs from a pharmaceutical industry\'s perspective. Overall, all found elements of value-based pricing were congruent with the elements of value-based pricing from a health authority\'s perspective. However, the emphasis placed on the elements differed. The most frequently mentioned elements in our review were economic considerations and cost aspects. Least mentioned were elements regarding cost-effectiveness, disease characteristics and patient characteristics. Although all elements in the drug value framework were present which indicate congruity, there seems controversy on the importance of cost-effectiveness as an element of value. Consequently, establishing a coherent and to all stakeholders\' acceptable framework to value and price innovative drugs seems complicated. Mutual understanding can be found in the value elements societal considerations and healthcare process benefits. Our results supported the importance of economic and cost aspects regarding determination of prices of innovative drugs. Further research is required to quantify the weights of all relevant elements in the drug value framework, observe their possible interlinkages, and to weigh them over time.

Eligible pediatric hospitals can purchase clinician-administered drugs at discounted rates through the 340B Drug Pricing Program and charge payers prices exceeding drug acquisition costs, but the magnitude of these markups is not known. In a study of newly approved oncology drugs at pediatric 340B hospitals, median negotiated prices ranged from 102% (interquartile range [IQR]: 91%-156%) of average sales price (ASP) at Phoenix Children\'s Hospital to 630% (IQR: 526%-630%) at Driscoll Children\'s Hospital. Pediatric hospitals participating in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program can extract steep payments on new drugs from commercial insurers, though with wide variation between and within hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the most matchable price of tirzepatide (TIRZ) compared with semaglutide (SEMA) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in China.
METHODS: The patient cohort and clinical efficacy data were derived from the SURPASS-2 trial. Cost-utility analysis and a binary search were performed to identify the most matchable price of TIRZ from a Chinese healthcare provider\'s perspective.
RESULTS: After lifetime simulation, the quality-adjusted life years of TIRZ 5, 10, 15 mg and SEMA 1 mg were 11.17, 11.21, 11.27 and 11.12 years, respectively. Despite an initial assumption that the annual cost of TIRZ equals that of SEMA, our analysis revealed that TIRZ is probably more cost-effective than SEMA. A thorough evaluation of pricing showed that the cost ranges for TIRZ at doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1628.61-$1846.23, $1738.40-$2140.95 and $1800.30-$2430.81, respectively. After adjustment in the univariate sensitivity analysis, the cost ranges for TIRZ 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1542.68-$1757.57, $1573.00-$1967.16 and $1576.54-$2133.96, respectively. These cost intervals were validated through robust probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, except for the cost range for TIRZ 5 mg.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, using SEMA as a reference, the annual costs for TIRZ 10 and 15 mg are $1573.00-$1967.16 and $1576.54-$2133.96, respectively, for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

OBJECTIVE: Decision makers considering using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform health-technology assessment must contend with documented and controversial shortfalls of CEA, including its assumption of disease severity independence and static pricing. ISPOR has recently introduced novel value elements besides direct healthcare cost and effectiveness for the patient, and these should be captured in CEA. Although novel value elements advance our understanding of \"what\" should be measured (value of hope, severity of disease, health equity, etc), there is limited direction on \"how\" to measure them in conventional CEA. Furthermore, with Medicare empowered to set drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act, it is not clear what role CEA might have on where prices are set, given objections to the quality-adjusted life year in conventional approaches.
METHODS: We critically reviewed the evidence for expanding conventional CEA methods to a more generalized approach of generalized CEA (GCEA).
RESULTS: GCEA accounts for methods that address objections to the quality-adjusted life year and incorporate novel value elements. Although GCEA offers advantages, it also requires further research to develop \"off-the-shelf\" resources to help inform, for example, maximum fair price in the context of Medicare drug price negotiation.
CONCLUSIONS: Should a shift toward GCEA reveal that the societal value of novel medicines exceeds their market-based costs, which will raise the key question of what market failure Medicare negotiation is meant to solve, if any, and therefore what the appropriate role of such negotiation might be to maximize the value society might garner from the development of novel medicines.

Discovery research is the starting point for the development of more effective anti-cancer treatments. It requires an interdisciplinary research environment with first-class infrastructural support in which curiosity-driven research can lead to new concepts for treating cancer. Translating such research findings to clinical practice requires complementary skills and infrastructures, including high-quality clinical facilities, access to patient cohorts and participation of pharma. This complex ecosystem has yielded many new but also \"me too\" treatment regimens, especially in immuno-oncology resulting in an extremely high pricing of anti-cancer agents. The costs of antibodies, vaccines, and cell therapies charged by pharma stand out although the concepts and methodologies have been largely developed in academia, financed from public funds. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) covering a coherent stretch of the cancer research continuum are well-positioned to make these personalized treatments more affordable, but this will require restructuring of the way the translational cancer research continuum is funded.

Priority-setting policy-makers often face moral and political pressure to balance the conflicting motivations of efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment. Using the conflict between these motivations as a case study can enrich the understanding of institutional design in developed democracies. This essay presents a cognitive-psychological account of the conflict between efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment in health care priority-setting. It then describes three sets of institutional arrangements-in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany, respectively-that contend with this conflict in interestingly different ways. The analysis yields at least three implications for institutional design in developed democracies: (1) indeterminacy at the level of moral psychology can increase the probability of indeterminacy at the level of institutional design; (2) situational constraints in effect require priority-setting policy-makers to adopt normative-moral pluralism; and (3) the U.S. health care system may be in an anti-priority-setting equilibrium.

Background: The 340B Drug Pricing Program provides discounted drug prices to safety-net entities which help stretch scarce resources to expand comprehensive services and treat more vulnerable patients. The program has received criticism questioning whether the original intentions are being accomplished. Objective: This qualitative study aimed to understand lived experiences of patients accessing high-cost injectable diabetes medication(s) through a 340B Prescription Cash Discount Program (PCDP) provided at a community health center. Methods: This qualitative study utilized semi-structured individual interviews. We invited patients ≥18 years old with diabetes for >1 year who utilized the 340B PCDP to fill an injectable diabetes medication at least twice between 3/1/2020-3/1/2021 to participate. Trained personnel interviewed ten participants in 11/2021-2/2022 and completed thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews. Results: Themes included 340B feedback, benefits of 340B, consequences of being without 340B, community pharmacy experience, and use of other services. Participants deemed the 340B program as a \"lifesaver.\" Perceived benefits of the program included improved diabetes control and savings that made their prescriptions more affordable. Consequences of being without the program include that medication was too expensive to take as prescribed and rationing/skipping doses. Participants were pleased with the accessibility of the network of contract pharmacies and described benefiting from services supported by 340B savings. Conclusions: Recent criticisms question whether the 340B program accomplishes its original intentions of stretching scarce federal resources to help safety-net entities expand services and treat more patients. This study provides insight into the personal impact of the 340B program on underserved patients with chronic disease accessing high-cost medication(s). Findings highlight crucial strengths of the program from the patient perspective, which policymakers and other stakeholders should consider to provide support for the continuation of these services.

Policy Points The 340B Drug Pricing Program accounts for roughly 1 out of every 100 dollars spent in the $4.3 trillion US health care industry. Decisions affecting the program will have wide-ranging consequences throughout the US safety net. Our scoping review provides a roadmap of the questions being asked about the 340B program and an initial synthesis of the answers. The highest-quality evidence indicates that nonprofit, disproportionate share hospitals may be using the 340B program in margin-motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements.
BACKGROUND: Despite remarkable growth and relevance of the 340B Drug Pricing Program to current health care practice and policy debate, academic literature examining 340B has lagged. The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize i) common research questions published about 340B, ii) what is empirically known about 340B and its implications, and iii) remaining knowledge gaps, all organized in a way that is informative to practitioners, researchers, and decision makers.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed, empirical 340B literature (database inception to March 2023). We categorized studies by suitability of their design for internal validity, type of covered entity studied, and motivation-by-scope category.
RESULTS: The final yield included 44 peer-reviewed, empirical studies published between 2003 and 2023. We identified 15 frequently asked research questions in the literature, across 6 categories of inquiry-motivation (margin or mission) and scope (external, covered entity, and care delivery interface). Literature with greatest internal validity leaned toward evidence of margin-motivated behavior at the external environment and covered entity levels, with inconsistent findings supporting mission-motivated behavior at these levels; this was particularly the case among participating disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). However, included case studies were unanimous in demonstrating positive effects of the 340B program for carrying out a provider\'s safety net mission.
CONCLUSIONS: In our scoping review of the 340B program, the highest-quality evidence indicates nonprofit, DSHs may be using the 340B program in margin-motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements. Future studies should examine heterogeneity by covered entity types (i.e., hospitals vs. public health clinics), characteristics, and time period of 340B enrollment. Our findings provide additional context to current health policy discussion regarding the 340B program.