METHODS: We matched medicines from the public sector procurement report by medicine formulation to medicines with a Management Sciences for Health (MSH) International Reference Price (IRP) for each year. Price ratios were calculated, and utilizing the information on quantity and expenditure for each product, summary measures of procurement efficiency were reported as quantity- and expenditure-weighted average price ratios (WAPRs) for each year. Utilizing MOH procurement data to obtain information on procurement type, a multiple regression analysis, controlling for factors that can influence prices, assessed whether procured efficiency (relative to IRPs) differed by MOH procurement type.
RESULTS: Malaysia's public sector purchased medicines at two to three times the IRP throughout the study period. However, procurement prices were relatively stable in terms of WAPRs each year (2.2 and 3.2 in 2010 to 1.9 and 2.9 in 2014 for quantity and expenditure WAPRs, respectively). Procurement efficiency did not vary between the three different methods of MOH procurement. Procurement efficiency of both imported originators and imported generics were significantly lower (P
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the evidence available: 1) on government initiatives to mandate transparency in drug pricing worldwide, 2) on the reported effects of drug pricing transparency initiatives on drug price, and 3) on the limitations and barriers of the implementation of drug pricing transparency.
METHODS: Databases such as Medline-Ovid, Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, and Science Direct were used to search for relevant literature from inception to February 2018. A manual search of grey literature such as policy papers, governmental publications, and websites was also performed to obtain the information that was not available in the articles. Using narrative synthesis, the results were critically assessed and summarized according to its context of drug pricing approaches.
RESULTS: Of the 4382 relevant articles located, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for drug price transparency initiatives. Only 3 studies reported the outcomes on the regulation of drug prices. Two studies in South Africa showed that price transparency initiatives did not necessarily reduce drug prices. Another study in the Philippines indicated a reduction in medicines' price based on the effects of government-mediated access prices. The limitations and barriers in price transparency initiatives include fragmentation of the healthcare system and nondisclosure of discounts and rebates by pharmaceutical companies.
CONCLUSION: Drug pricing transparency initiatives have been implemented in many countries and commonly coexist with a country's pricing policies. Nevertheless, due to sparse evidence, the effect of drug price transparency initiatives on price control is still inconclusive.
METHODS: Cross-sectional survey design was used for the present study. Pricing data from ten counties including one from South-East Asia, two from Western Pacific and seven from Eastern Mediterranean regions were used in this study. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean unit prices for 26 anti-cancer drug presentations (similar pharmaceutical form, strength, and pack size) were used to compare prices of anti-cancer drugs across three regions. A structured form was used to extract relevant data. Data were entered and analysed using Microsoft Excel®.
RESULTS: Overall, Taiwan had the lowest mean unit prices while Oman had the highest prices. Six (23.1%) and nine (34.6%) drug presentations had a mean unit price below US$100 and between US$100 and US$500 respectively. Eight drug presentations (30.7%) had a mean unit price of more than US$1000 including cabazitaxel with a mean unit price of $17,304.9/vial. There was a direct relationship between income category of the countries and their mean unit price; low-income countries had lower mean unit prices. The average PPP-adjusted unit prices for countries based on their income level were as follows: low middle-income countries (LMICs): US$814.07; high middle income countries (HMICs): US$1150.63; and high income countries (HICs): US$1148.19.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a great variation in pricing of anticancer drugs in selected countires and within their respective regions. These findings will allow policy makers to compare prices of anti-cancer agents with neighbouring countries and develop policies to ensure accessibility and affordability of anti-cancer drugs.
METHODS: We selected two medicines on the 2013 Thai national list of essential medicines (NLEM) [letrozole and imatinib] and three unlisted medicines for the same indications [trastuzumab, nilotinib and dasatinib]. We created timelines of access policies and programs for these products based on scientific and grey literature. Using IMS Health sales data, we described the trajectories of sales volumes of the study medicines between January 2001 and December 2012. We compared estimated average numbers of patients treated before and after the implementation of policies and programs for each product.
RESULTS: Different stakeholders implemented multiple interventions to increase access to the study medicines for different patient populations. During 2007-2009, the Thai Government created a special NLEM category with different coverage requirements for payers and issued compulsory licenses; payers negotiated prices with manufacturers and engaged in pooled procurement; pharmaceutical companies expanded patient assistance programs and lowered prices in different ways. Compared to before the interventions, estimated numbers of patients treated with each medicine increased significantly afterwards: for letrozole from 645 (95% CI 366-923) to 3683 (95% CI 2,748-4,618); for imatinib from 103 (95% CI 72-174) to 350 (95% CI 307-398); and for trastuzumab from 68 (95% CI 45-118) to 412 (95% CI 344-563).
CONCLUSIONS: Government, payers, and manufacturers implemented multi-pronged approaches to facilitate access to targeted cancer therapies for the Thai population, which differed by medicine. Routine monitoring is needed to assess clinical and economic impacts of these strategies in the health system.
METHODS: A prospective 1-year study was conducted in rheumatology clinics of tertiary care hospitals of Karachi, Pakistan. Cost-of-illness methodology was used and all patient data related to costs of rheumatologist visits, physical therapy sessions, medications, assistive devices and laboratory investigations were obtained directly in printed hardcopies from patient electronic databases using their medical record numbers. Transportation cost was calculated from patient-reported log books. Data were analyzed through IBM SPSS version 23. Patients were asked to sign a written consent and the study was ethically approved.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients (N = 358) was 48 years. Most patients (73.7%) were female, married (86%) and had basic education (71.8%). Average cost of rheumatologist visits was PKR 11 510.61 (USD: 72.05) while it was PKR 66 947.37 (USD: 419.07) for physical therapy sessions. On average, medicines and medical devices costs were estimated at PKR 10 104.23 (USD: 63.25) and PKR 7848.48 (USD: 49.13) respectively. Cost attributed to diagnostic and laboratory charges was PKR 1962.12 (USD: 12.28) and travel expense was PKR 6541 (USD: 40.95). The direct expenditure associated with managing RA was PKR 37 558 (USD: 235.1). All costs were reported per annum.
CONCLUSION: Patient with RA in Pakistan pay a considerable amount of their income for managing their condition. Most patients have no provision for insurance which is a need considering the nature of the disease and associated productivity loss that would significantly lower income as the disease progresses.