| Title |
Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-018-0716-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Néboa Zozaya, Bleric Alcalá, Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega |
| Abstract |
For medicines with different valued indications (uses), multi-indication pricing implies charging different prices for different uses. In this article, we assess how multi-indication pricing could help achieve overall strategic objectives of pricing controls, summarise its advantages and disadvantages (vs. uniform pricing) and estimate the hypothetical impact on prices of moving towards multi-indication pricing for specific oncologic medicines in Spain. International experience shows that multi-indication pricing can be implemented in real practice, and indeed a few initiatives are currently in use, albeit mostly applied indirectly through confidential pricing agreements that offer a way to discriminate prices across countries without altering list prices. However, some more sophisticated systems are in place in Italy, and more recently in Spain, where the objective is to monitor usage per patient/indication, and ultimately pay for outcomes. Based on the existing experience, we also outline six conditions required for multi-indication pricing. Multi-indication pricing is a useful tool to determine the relative prices of a drug for multiple (different-valued) indications, but by itself will not offer the 'solution' to what the absolute price should be. That will be driven, among other things, by cost-effectiveness thresholds, if they exist. Overall, we argue multi-indication pricing is nice in theory and it could work in practice, although changes in the manner in which medicines are priced, procured and monitored in clinical practice need to be applied. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 2 | 22% |
| Spain | 2 | 22% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 10 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 January 2020.
All research outputs
#5,785,703
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#684
of 1,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,018
of 337,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 337,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.