Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab plus capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese payers. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of zolbetuximab plus CAPOX versus placebo plus CAPOX. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of model. Results: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX gained an additional cost of $91,551 and an extra health benefit of 0.24 QALY over placebo plus CAPOX, producing an ICER of $388,186/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,223/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that the model was generally robust. Conclusion: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX would not be a cost-effective first-line treatment regimen in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in China.
[Box: see text].

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers\' perspective.
METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the \"non-recurrence\" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

The introduction of the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB PM-JAY) scheme in India was a significant step toward universal health coverage. The PM-JAY scheme has made notable progress since its inception, including increasing the number of people covered and expanding the range of services provided under the health benefit package (HBP). The creation of the Health Financing and Technology Assessment (HeFTA) unit within the National Health Authority (NHA) further enhanced evidence-based decision-making processes. We outline the journey of HeFTA and highlight significant cost savings to the PM-JAY as a result of health technology assessment (HTA). Our paper also discusses the application of HTA evidence for decisions related to inclusions or exclusions in HBP, framing standard treatment guidelines as well as other policies. We recommend that future financing reforms for strategic purchasing should strengthen strategic purchasing arrangements and adopt value-based pricing (VBP). Integrating HTA and VBP is a progressive approach toward health care financing reforms for large government-funded schemes like the PM-JAY.

OBJECTIVE: Value-based pricing (VBP) determines product prices based on their perceived benefits. In healthcare, VBP prices medical technologies considering health outcomes and other relevant factors. This study applies VBP using economic evaluation to provider-patient communication, taking cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for adult primary care patients with depressive disorders as a case study.
METHODS: A 12-week decision-tree model was developed from the German social health insurance system\'s perspective, comparing CBT against the standard of care. The influence of an extended time horizon on VBP was assessed using a theoretical model and long-term data spanning 46 months.
RESULTS: Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €88,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, the base-case 50-minute compensation rate for CBT was €45. Assuming long-term effects of CBT significantly affected the value-based compensation, increasing it to €226.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showcases the potential of applying VBP to CBT. However, significant price variability is highlighted, contingent upon assumptions regarding CBT\'s long-term impacts.

暂无摘要。

Economic evaluations of treatments increasingly employ price-threshold analyses. When a treatment has multiple indications, standard price-threshold analyses can be overly simplistic. We examine how rules governing indication-specific prices and reimbursement decisions affect value-based price analyses.
We analyze a 2-stage game between 2 players: the therapy\'s manufacturer and the payer purchasing it for patients. First, the manufacturer selects a price(s) that may be indication specific. Then, the payer decides whether to provide reimbursement at the offered price(s). We assume known indication-specific demand. The manufacturer seeks to maximize profit. The payer seeks to maximize total population incremental net monetary benefit and will not pay more than their willingness-to-pay threshold. We consider game variants defined by constraints on the manufacturer\'s ability to price and payer\'s ability to provide reimbursement differentially by indication.
When both the manufacturer and payer can make indication-specific decisions, the problem simplifies to multiple single-indication price-threshold analyses, and the manufacturer captures all the consumer surplus. When the manufacturer is restricted to one price and the payer must make an all-or-nothing reimbursement decision, the selected price is a weighted average of indication-specific threshold prices such that reimbursement of more valuable indications subsidizes reimbursement of less valuable indications. With a single price and indication-specific coverage decisions, the manufacturer may select a high price where fewer patients receive treatment because the payer restricts reimbursement to the set of indications providing value commensurate with the high price. However, the manufacturer may select a low price, resulting in reimbursement for more indications and positive consumer surplus.
When treatments have multiple indications, economic evaluations including price-threshold analyses should carefully consider jurisdiction-specific rules regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions.
With treatment prices rising, economic evaluations increasingly employ price-threshold analyses to identify value-based prices. Standard price-threshold analyses can be overly simplistic when treatments have multiple indications.Jurisdiction-specific rules governing indication-specific prices and reimbursement decisions affect value-based price analyses.When the manufacturer is restricted to one price for all indications and the payer must make an all-or-nothing reimbursement decision, the selected price is a weighted average of indication-specific threshold prices such that reimbursement of the more valuable indications subsidize reimbursement of the less valuable indications.With a single price and indication-specific coverage decisions, the manufacturer may select a high price with fewer patients treated than in the first-best solution. There are also cases in which the manufacturer selects a lower price, resulting in reimbursement for more indications and positive consumer surplus.

Rising cancer drug prices challenge patients and healthcare systems. Although prices are routinely assigned to original drug indications receiving US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the pricing of supplemental indication approvals remains uncertain. This study identifies and quantifies factors associated with cancer drug prices, distinctly analyzing original and supplemental indications.
Clinical trial evidence and epidemiologic data supporting new indications\' FDA approval (2003-2022) were collected from the Drugs@FDA database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Global Burden of Disease study. Indication-specific monthly treatment costs were calculated for Medicare patients. The association between log-prices and collected variables were assessed in regression analyses.
We identified 145 drugs approved across 373 cancer indications. Drugs were priced at $24 444 per month on average (median = $16 013). For original indications, prices weakly correlated to improvements in overall survival (β = 0.28, P = .037) and progression-free survival (β = 0.16, P = .001). Original indications\' prices were as follows: (1) negatively associated with disease incidence (β = -0.21, P < .001) and prevalence; (2) positively correlated with first-in-class drugs (26%, P = .057), gene and cell therapies (176%, P < .001), hematologic cancers (62%, P < .001), and severe diseases with substantial unmet needs (6% per disability-adjusted life-year, P < .001); and (3) negatively correlated to indications with randomized-controlled phase 3 trials. Prices were poorly associated with supplemental indications\' efficacy, clinical evidence, and epidemiology.
Cancer drug prices are set based on the original indication\'s characteristics, thereby omitting the value of supplemental indications. Indication-specific pricing, coverage, and reimbursement policies considering each indication\'s safety, efficacy, innovativeness, and unmet needs are necessary to align a drug\'s value and price.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study is to explore the current practice in Cyprus regarding the introduction and reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals through Managed Entry Agreements (MEA), assess its operational context, and suggest approaches toward spanning the knowledge gap consequential to these efforts, especially the barriers of a small country context.
UNASSIGNED: The recent introduction of a National Health System (NHS), brought about fundamental reforms in Cyprus\' Healthcare sector. Among such reforms, of particular interest, has been the introduction of a Managed Entry Agreements (MEA) mechanism. The first preliminary results indicate that despite being a small and unattractive market, Cyprus can apply a substantial MEA program. Concomitantly, it annotates the need to design an operational framework which should include, the definition of important technical parameters, clear demarcation of the scope, cooperation principles ensuring the effective operation of scientific committees, and clear delineation of what \'value\' is. Moreover, in the context of the unified healthcare market, budget transfers should be considered, which could alleviate the inordinate budget impact of new products, which nevertheless will cut down on hospital expenditures. Narrative synthesis and health policy analysis-related resources were used.
UNASSIGNED: The implementation of MEA in Cyprus provides an ideal testing ground for innovative reimbursement approaches. This will streamline the country\'s efforts toward reimbursement of innovation, while concomitantly add to the collective MEA experience.

Growth in the cost of prescription drugs in the US has generated significant interest in the use of external reference pricing (ERP) to tie prices paid for drugs to those in other countries. We used data from the Pricentric ONE™ database, an international drug pricing database, to examine product launch timing, launch price, and price changes from January 2010 - October 2021 in both ERP and non-ERP settings, with a focus on 100 high-priced drugs of interest to Medicare and Medicaid. We found that ERP policies were associated with a 73% reduction in the likelihood of drug launch within 9 months of regulatory approval relative to non-ERP settings. In addition, while ERP was associated with statistically significant reductions in annual drug price changes, such policies did not impact launch price. In addition, no single ERP feature (e.g., number of countries referenced, ERP calculation) was materially associated with the outcomes of interest. We conclude that ERP policies do not appear to impact drug launch price and may delay access to new therapies, raising questions about the utility of such policies in the US and potential consequences abroad.

UNASSIGNED: Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements.
UNASSIGNED: Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.