Background: Contemporary debates about drug pricing feature several widely held misconceptions, including the relationship between incentives and innovation, the proportion of total healthcare spending on pharmaceuticals, and whether the economic evaluation of a medicine can be influenced by things other than clinical efficacy.

Main Body: All citizens should have access to timely, equitable, and cost-effective care covered by public funds, private insurance, or a combination of both. Better managing the collective burden of diseases borne by today's and future generations depends in part on developing better technologies, including better medicines. As in any innovative industry, the expectation of adequate financial returns incentivizes innovators and their investors to develop new medicines. Estimating expected returns requires that they forecast revenues, based on the future price trajectory and volume of use over time. How market participants decide what price to set or accept can be complicated, and some observers and stakeholders want to confirm whether the net prices society pays for novel medicines, whether as a reward for past innovation or an incentive for future innovation, are commensurate with those medicines' incremental value. But we must also ask "value to whom?"; medicines not only bring immediate clinical benefits to patients treated today, but also can provide a broad spectrum of short- and long-term benefits to patients, their families, and society. Spending across all facets of healthcare has grown over the last 25 years, but both inpatient and outpatient spending has outpaced drug spending growth even as our drug armamentarium is constantly improving with safer and more effective medicines. In large part, this is because, unlike hospitals, drugs typically go generic, thus making room in our budgets for new and better ones, even as they often keep patients out of hospitals, driving further savings.

Conclusion: A thorough evaluation of drug spending and value can help to promote a better allocation of healthcare resources for both the healthy and the sick, both of whom must pay for healthcare. Taking a holistic approach to assessing drug value makes it clear that a branded drug's value to a patient is often only a small fraction of the drug's total value to society. Societal value merits consideration when determining whether and how to make a medicine affordable and accessible to patients: a drug that is worth its price to society should not be rendered inaccessible to ill patients by imposing high out-of-pocket costs or restricting coverage based on narrow health technology assessments (HTAs). Furthermore, recognizing the total societal cost of un- or undertreated conditions is crucial to gaining a thorough understanding of what guides the biomedical innovation ecosystem to create value for society. It would be unwise to discourage the development of new solutions without first appreciating the cost of leaving the problems unsolved.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10826180PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03262-wDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

benefits patients
8
drug spending
8
drug
6
spending
5
better
5
medicines
5
society
5
patients
5
price
4
price right?
4

Similar Publications

Background: The prognosis of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) remains dismal. Trofosfamide (TRO) has been proposed as a well-tolerated oral maintenance therapy. This retrospective analysis aims to determine the value of this therapy.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Ghrelin, the endogenous ligand of the growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHSR), promotes food intake, other feeding behaviours and stimulates growth hormone (GH) release from the pituitary. Growth hormone secretagogues (GHS), such as GHRP-6 and MK-0677, are synthetic GHSR ligands that activate orexigenic Neuropeptide Y neurons that co-express Agouti-Related Peptide (AgRP) in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus when administered systemically. Systemic GHRP-6 also stimulates GH release in humans and rats.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Access to accurate medical diagnosis has been hindered by socioeconomic disparities, limited availability of specialized medical professionals, and lack of patient education, among other factors. Inequities in access to high-quality healthcare services exacerbate these challenges, often leading to disparities in health outcomes. Missed or inaccurate diagnoses can lead to delayed or unnecessary treatments, risking worsening of the condition.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Previous research has demonstrated ɑ7nAch receptor (ɑ7nAchR) agonists to provide benefit for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, the immunological mechanism of action for these ɑ7nAchR agonists has not been elucidated. Herein, the effect of GTS-21, a selective ɑ7nAchR agonist, on the differentiation of Th17 and Th2 cells was assessed.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Many interventional strategies are commonly used to treat chronic low back pain (CLBP), though few are specifically intended to target the distinct underlying pathomechanisms causing low back pain. Restorative neurostimulation has been suggested as a specific treatment for mechanical CLBP resulting from multifidus dysfunction. In this randomized controlled trial, we report outcomes from a cohort of patients with CLBP associated with multifidus dysfunction treated with restorative neurostimulation compared to those randomized to a control group receiving optimal medical management (OMM) over 1 year.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!