| Title |
Personalized Medicine and Pay for Performance: Should Pharmaceutical Firms be Fully Penalized when Treatment Fails?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-018-0619-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fernando Antoñanzas, Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas, Carmelo A. Juárez-Castelló |
| Abstract |
In this article, we model the behavior of a pharmaceutical firm that has marketing authorization for a new therapy believed to be a candidate for personalized use in a subset of patients, but that lacks information as to why a response is seen only in some patients. We characterize the optimal outcome-based reimbursement policy a health authority should follow to encourage the pharmaceutical firm to undertake research and development activities to generate the information needed to effectively stratify patients. Consistent with the literature, we find that for a pharmaceutical firm that does not undertake research and development activities, when the treatment fails, the total price of the drug must be returned to the healthcare system (full penalization). By contrast, if the firm undertakes research and development activities that make the implementation of personalized medicine possible, treatment failure should not be fully penalized. Surprisingly, in some cases, particularly for high-efficacy drugs and small target populations, the optimal policy may not require any penalty for treatment failure. To illustrate the main results of the analysis, we provide a numerical simulation and a graphical analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 9 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2023.
All research outputs
#15,946,561
of 24,271,113 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,605
of 1,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,736
of 481,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#31
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,271,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 481,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.