↓ Skip to main content

The End of the International Reference Pricing System?

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 838)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
The End of the International Reference Pricing System?
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40258-015-0182-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulf Persson, Bengt Jönsson

Abstract

All 28 EU member states except Sweden and the UK apply international reference pricing (IRP), international price comparison, external reference pricing or cross-reference pricing. The attractiveness of using prices of other countries as a benchmark for decisions within a national price control is obvious. Alternative models for price and reimbursement decision making such as value-based pricing (VBP), i.e. cost-effectiveness analyses, are more complicated. However, IRP provides incentives for stakeholders to take action not in line with optimal (welfare-maximizing) pricing. IRP is costly for two reasons. First, manufacturers are incentivised to limit or delay access to new innovative treatments in countries with small markets and/or a low income, which can be costly in terms of loss of health. Second, all countries also experience a loss of welfare (health) because IRP reduces the opportunities for differential pricing (Ramsey pricing), i.e. using the fact that the ability and willingness to pay differs between countries. Thus, IRP results in less sales revenue to finance research and development of new innovative drugs. We can now observe that payers and manufacturers are engaged in different types of risk-sharing schemes, price-volume negotiations, payback arrangements, confidential discounts, coverage with evidence developments, etc., all with the purpose of returning to the old model of price discrimination and Ramsey pricing. Shortly, real prices for use in IRP systems will cease to exist and, thus, we expect to soon see the end of IRP, a new system for price discrimination and an increasing demand for VBP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Azerbaijan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 20%
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Other 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 23 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 12%
Social Sciences 14 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 8%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 32 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 18 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,301,700
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#37
of 838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,640
of 269,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 269,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.