↓ Skip to main content

Branded prescription drug spending: a framework to evaluate policy options

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Branded prescription drug spending: a framework to evaluate policy options
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40545-017-0115-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeromie Ballreich, G. Caleb Alexander, Mariana Socal, Taruja Karmarkar, Gerard Anderson

Abstract

High drug spending is a concern for policy makers due to limits on access for patients. Numerous policies have been proposed to address high drug spending. The existence of multifarious proposals makes it difficult for policy makers to consider all the alternatives. We developed an approach to select the most viable options to present to policy makers. We identified 41 different proposals in the peer-reviewed literature to reduce the level of spending or change the incentives for branded prescription drugs; ten of which we identified as promising proposals. Based on criterion used to assess various legislative proposals regarding branded pharmaceuticals we developed a framework to evaluate the ten promising proposals. We then used a modified Delphi technique to iteratively evaluate these ten proposals starting with the initial criterion. During each iteration, five researchers independently evaluated the ten policies based on available criterion and assessed how to modify the criterion to achieve consensus on what attributes the criterion were intended to measure. We highlight areas of disagreement to show where modifications to existing criterion are needed. We found general agreement for most policy-criterion combinations after three iterations. Areas with the greatest remaining disagreement include possible unintended consequences, the concept of value implied by many of the policies, and secondary effects by the pharmaceutical industry, insurers, and the FDA. Our analysis provides an approach that can be applied to evaluate policy proposals. It also suggests factors that policy analysts and researchers should consider when they propose policy options and where additional research is needed to assess policy impacts. Developing an objective approach to compare alternatives may facilitate the adoption of policies for branded prescription drugs in the U.S. by allowing policy makers to focus on the most viable options.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 25%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 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 01 November 2017.
All research outputs
#9,278,282
of 15,811,518 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#174
of 238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,146
of 280,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,811,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 280,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them