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: We conducted a systematic review searching MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO for studies published from January 2000 to March 2019. Reference lists and conference proceedings were hand-searched. Observational and intervention studies were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Of 13 373 records identified, 11 studies from Australia, Europe, Malaysia and the United States were included. All studies had at least a serious risk of bias, largely due to confounding and selection bias, making it difficult to draw causal conclusions from the evidence. Ten studies provided data on the association between current OAT use and recent HIV testing. Six showed a positive association, while four provided little evidence of an association: pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-2.27. Looking at having ever been on OAT and having ever been HIV tested, seven studies showed a positive association and three showed either weak or no evidence of an association: pooled OR = 3.82, 95% CI = 2.96-4.95.
CONCLUSIONS: Opioid agonist therapy may increase uptake of HIV testing among people who inject drugs, providing further evidence that opioid agonist therapy improves the HIV treatment care cascade.
METHODS: We matched medicines from the product registration database by medicine formulation to medicines in IQVIA National Pharmaceutical Audit database for each year. The price per Defined Daily Dose (DDD), market concentration and generic utilization share variables were calculated. A panel fixed effect model was performed to measure diffusion of NCEs for each year and test possible determinants of diffusion of NCEs for overall market and sector specifics.
RESULTS: The utilization of NCEs was larger in the private sector compared to the public sector but the speed of diffusion over time was higher in the public sector. Price per DDD was negatively associated with diffusion of NCEs, while generic utilization share was significantly regressive in the public sector. Market concentration was negatively associated with utilization of NCEs, however result tends to be mixed according to sector and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) category.
CONCLUSIONS: Understanding key aspects of sectoral variation in diffusion of NCEs are crucial to reduce the differences of access to new medicines within a country and ensure resources are used on cost effective treatments.