The impact of additive or substitutive clinical study design on the negotiated reimbursement for oncology pharmaceuticals after early benefit assessment in Germany

C. M. Dintsios () and I. Beinhauer ()
Additional contact information
C. M. Dintsios: Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Heinrich Heine University
I. Beinhauer: Health Economics, Cologne, Trainee at Bayer Vital GmbH

Health Economics Review, 2020, vol. 10, issue 1, 1-25

Abstract: Abstract Background We analysed the impact of clinical study design for oncological pharmaceuticals on the subsequent price negotiations after early benefit assessment between pharmaceutical companies and the German National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds. The analysis was conducted for all oncology pharmaceuticals that underwent the early benefit assessment in Germany since its introduction in 2011 up to September 2016. Methods It was differentiated between additive (new therapy in addition to baseline therapy) and substitutive study designs (baseline therapy to be replaced). The study design was derived from the dossiers of the pharmaceutical companies submitted to the Federal Joint Committee. Subgroup specific costs in case of granted added benefit were calculated as annual therapy costs and compared with the costs of the appropriate comparators to quantify price premiums. Further price influencing factors were analysed in univariate and multivariate regression analysis considering the budget impact for the statutory health insurance as well. Results The mean and the median of the additive premiums for substitutive designs (€50,477.68 and €49,841.24) were higher than for additive designs, if the comparator was different to best supportive care (€48,750.00 and €42,820.44). The mean multiplicative premium for the substitutive designs was 15.07 versus 2.29 for the additive designs. EU-Prices and target population size had a significant effect on the reimbursement. The adjusted R-square in the log Premium OLS-regressions reached 0.708 when including all explanatory variables and considering interaction between target population and annual costs of the comparator. Conclusions Study design as an additional important influencing factor of the negotiations next to those stated in the framework agreement was identified and verified. Therefore, study design should be considered by pharmaceutical companies and by decision makers and payers within strategic price planning as a potential predictor. For some specific categories the number of cases was small. Further analyses should be performed when more oncology pharmaceuticals have passed the early benefit assessment.

Keywords: Study design; Negotiated prices; Oncological drugs; Pharmaceutical companies; Payers; German statutory health insurance; I11; I13; I18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-020-00263-2 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00263-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/13561

DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00263-2

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics Review is currently edited by J. Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

More articles in Health Economics Review from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().