The impact of two pharmaceutical risk-sharing agreements on pricing, promotion, and net health benefits

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 838-845

  Zaric, Gregory S ^a   Xie, Bin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Pharmaceutical advertising; Pharmaceutical pricing; Rebates; Risk sharing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG MARKETING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; CONTRACTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; MODELS, ECONOMIC; RISK SHARING, FINANCIAL;

EID: 67649933637     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00510.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. OECD Health Data. Annual growth in drug expenditure and total health expenditure, 1998 to 2003. 2005, Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/ 35/13/34966969.pdf [Accessed 29 January, 2008 SG. Prescription drug expenditures and population demographics. Health Serv Res 2006 41 : 411 28.
2. Taylor RS, Drummond ME, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Development of fourth hurdle policies around the world. In : Freemantle N, Hill S, eds. Evaluating Pharmaceuticals for Health Policy and Reimbursement. Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
3. BBC News. Cancer-drug refund scheme backed. 2007. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6713503.stm [Accessed 14 February, 2008 BJ. Cost-effective prescribing: trying to hit the target in Ontario and Australia. Aust Prescr 2002 25 : 128 30.
4. Chadwick D, Gray R. Shared scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis: dealing with uncertainties about cost effectiveness of treatments is difficult problem. BMJ 2003 326 : 1213.
5. Sudlow CLM, Counsell CE. Problems with UK government's risk sharing scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis. BMJ 2003 15 : 388 92.
6. Zaric GS, O'Brien BJ. Analysis of a risk sharing agreement based on the purchaser's total budget. Health Econ 2005 14 : 793 803. (Pubitemid 41093976)
7. Claxton K. OFT, VBP: QED? Health Econ 2007 16 : 545 58.
8. Coyle D, Buxton MJ, O'Brien BJ. Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. Health Econ 2003 12 : 421 7.
9. Zaric GS. Optimal drug pricing, limited use conditions and stratified net benefits for Markov models of disease progression. Health Econ 2008 17 : 1277 94.
10. Garrison LP, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Towse A. Paying for pills by result: performance-based rewards for innovation. Value Health 2008 11 : 3.
11. Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, et al. Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey. BMJ 2002 324 : 278 9.
12. Jackevicius CA, Tu JV, Ross JS, et al. Use of ezetimibe in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med 2008 358 : 1819 28.
13. Goldfeld S, Quandt R. The estimation of Cobb-Douglas type functions with multiplicative and additive errors. Int Econ Rev 1970 11 : 251 7.
14. Cook JP, Vernon JA, Manning R. Pharmaceutical risk-sharing agreements. Pharmacoeconomics 2008 26 : 551 6.
15. Pouvourville G. Risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs: a new solution to old problems? Eur J Health Econ 2006 7 : 155 7.
16. Steinman MA, Harper GM, Chren MM, et al. Characteristics and impact of drug detailing for gabapentin. PLoS Med 2007 4 : e134.
17. Silversides A. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads getting bolder. CMAJ 2001 165 : 462.
18. Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, et al. Influence of patients' requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005 293 : 1995 2002. (Pubitemid 40570893)
19. Xie B, Dilts M, Shor M. The physician-patient relationship: the impact of patient-obtained medical information. Health Econ 2006 15 : 813 33.