Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?

For medicines with different valued indications (uses), multi-indication pricing implies charging different prices for different uses. In this article, we assess how multi-indication pricing could help achieve overall strategic objectives of pricing controls, summarise its advantages and disadvantages (vs. uniform pricing) and estimate the hypothetical impact on prices of moving towards multi-indication pricing for specific oncologic medicines in Spain. International experience shows that multi-indication pricing can be implemented in real practice, and indeed a few initiatives are currently in use, albeit mostly applied indirectly through confidential pricing agreements that offer a way to discriminate prices across countries without altering list prices. However, some more sophisticated systems are in place in Italy, and more recently in Spain, where the objective is to monitor usage per patient/indication, and ultimately pay for outcomes. Based on the existing experience, we also outline six conditions required for multi-indication pricing. Multi-indication pricing is a useful tool to determine the relative prices of a drug for multiple (different-valued) indications, but by itself will not offer the 'solution' to what the absolute price should be. That will be driven, among other things, by cost-effectiveness thresholds, if they exist. Overall, we argue multi-indication pricing is nice in theory and it could work in practice, although changes in the manner in which medicines are priced, procured and monitored in clinical practice need to be applied.

Determining the Value of Two Biologic Drugs for Chronic Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Results of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a tool that systematically considers multiple factors relevant to health decision-making. The aim of this study was to use an MCDA to assess the value of dupilumab for severe atopic dermatitis compared with secukinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Spain. METHOD: Following the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcision Making) methodology, the estimated value of both interventions was obtained by means of an additive linear model that combined the individual weighting (between 1 and 5) of each criterion with the individual scoring of each intervention in each criterion. Dupilumab was evaluated against placebo, while secukinumab was evaluated against placebo, etanercept and ustekinumab. A retest was performed to assess the reproducibility of weights, scores and value estimates. RESULTS: The overall MCDA value estimate for dupilumab versus placebo was 0.51 ± 0.14. This value was higher than those obtained for secukinumab: 0.48 ± 0.15 versus placebo, 0.45 ± 0.15 versus etanercept and 0.39 ± 0.18 versus ustekinumab. The highest-value contribution was reported by the patients' group, followed by the clinical professionals and the decision makers. A fundamental element that explained the difference in the scoring between pathologies was the availability of therapeutic alternatives. The retest confirmed the consistency and replicability of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Under this methodology, and assuming similar economic costs per patient for both treatments, the results indicated that the overall value estimated of dupilumab for severe atopic dermatitis was similar to, or slightly higher than, that of secukinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.