Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Considering transparency and value for fairer drug prices

Paul Webster
CMAJ January 08, 2018 190 (1) E30-E31; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5538
Paul Webster
Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Six months after the federal government began overhauling how it regulates drug prices, it has tabled a five-point plan for new regulations. Much of the plan consists of long-familiar measures, such as comparing list prices to those in other countries. But two of the proposed regulations— compelling drug-makers to disclose the true prices paid for drugs, and assessing prices based on actual value to patients — have the potential to radically reduce drug prices, according to Steven Morgan, a health economist at the University of British Columbia. “It will depend,” he warns, though, “on how the regulations are implemented.”

The federal government is under pressure to do something bold. Spending by the federal and provincial governments on patented drugs costing more than $10 000 per patient annually increased 60% last year, and spending on brand-name pharmaceuticals as a whole rose 18%.

Canada’s current drug-price regulation framework “does not consider whether the price of a drug reflects its value to patients,” Health Canada explained when it launched consultations on the issue. But the government plans to start considering value using a strategy that “identifies, measures, and compares the costs and benefits of a given medicine to patients and the health care system.”

The provinces already do a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of drugs to consider how well they work and how much they should cost. But having federal regulators do it when they assess drugs for marketing approval “represents a huge opportunity,” said Helen Stevenson, president of Reformulary Group, which advises private drug plans on spending controls.

One of the most vocal proponents of this concept — known as “value-based pricing” — is Dr. Peter Bach, director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Speaking recently at TEDMED, Bach emphasized the potential for value-based pricing to curb profiteering by drug-makers.

Figure

The actual prices that public and private insurers pay for drugs is often kept secret.

Image courtesy of matt_benoit/iStock

A drug’s true value, according to Bach, should be calculated using the efficacy and safety data supplied by drug companies to government safety regulators. This would enable price-setting based on a drug’s health benefits, adverse effects, scientific novelty, research costs, and the relative seriousness of the disease it’s designed to treat.

Once a price has been calculated using this approach, Bach added, it should be compared with the actual prices paid by insurers and bulk purchasers. At present, the real prices paid for drugs are generally kept secret in Canada and the United States. Adopting value-based pricing, however, will require dramatic reforms aimed at making price-setting “transparent, fair and sustainable,” said Bach.

The Patented Medicines Price Review Board (PMPRB), Canada’s drug-price watchdog, aims to adopt something akin to this approach. The government plans to use data contained in regulatory filings by pharmaceutical companies to help determine fair prices, according to Tanya Potashnik, director of policy and economic analysis for the board. “That should be part of the consideration,” said Potashnik.

When Health Canada initially revealed its interest in value-based pricing (also called “pharmacoeconomic analyses”), Innovative Medicines Canada, the industry group that represents patented drug companies, voiced concern about the approach.

“The ability to negotiate confidential reduced prices has benefited Canadians,” the group suggested, adding that “pharmacoeconomic analyses are not mechanisms that should be used to regulate excessive drug prices.”

If the government proceeds with the proposals, new regulatory powers should be applied only to new products, to “avoid significant uncertainty with respect to the compliance status of currently regulated products,” stated the industry association.

But according to Morgan, implementing value-based pricing isn’t enough. In addition to challenging unfair prices, the government should challenge drug companies’ ability to claim monopoly privileges before prices are set, especially if any of the research in the development process was publicly funded.

“Why should we automatically transfer all of the value of a drug to the firm that holds the patent and markets it?” Morgan asked.

Footnotes

  • Posted on cmajnews.com on Dec. 6, 2017.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 190 (1)
CMAJ
Vol. 190, Issue 1
8 Jan 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Considering transparency and value for fairer drug prices
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Considering transparency and value for fairer drug prices
Paul Webster
CMAJ Jan 2018, 190 (1) E30-E31; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5538

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Considering transparency and value for fairer drug prices
Paul Webster
CMAJ Jan 2018, 190 (1) E30-E31; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5538
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • What the U.S. overturning Roe v. Wade means for Canada
  • Is one-way masking enough?
  • XE, XD & XF: what to know about the Omicron hybrid variants
Show more News

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire