Reimbursement and value-based pricing: stratified cost-effectiveness analysis may not be the last word

Abstract

During recent discussions, it has been argued that stratified cost-effectiveness analysis has a key role in reimbursement decision-making and value-based pricing (VBP). It has previously been shown that when manufacturers are price-takers, reimbursement decisions made in reference to stratified cost-effectiveness analysis lead to a more efficient allocation of resources than decisions based on whole-population cost-effectiveness analysis. However, we demonstrate that when manufacturers are price setters, reimbursement or VBP based on stratified cost-effectiveness analysis may not be optimal. Using two examples - one considering the choice of thrombolytic treatment for specific patient subgroups and the other considering the extension of coverage for a cancer treatment to include an additional indication - we show that combinations of extended coverage and reduced price can be identified that are advantageous to both payers and manufacturers. The benefits of a given extension in coverage and reduction in price depend both upon the average treatment benefit in the additional population and its size relative to the original population. Negotiation regarding trade-offs between price and coverage may lead to improved outcomes both for health-care systems and manufacturers compared with processes where coverage is determined conditional simply on stratified cost-effectiveness at a given price.