Introduction: There are appreciable concerns among European health authorities with growing expenditure on cancer medicines and issues of sustainability. The enhanced use of low cost generics could help. Aims: Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively document current and future arrangements regarding the pricing of generic cancer medicines across Europe, and whether these are indication specific, as well as how this translates into actual prices to provide future direction. Methodology: Mixed method approach with qualitative research among senior health authority personnel and their advisers. Quantitative research via health authority databases to ascertain current prices for oral cancer medicines that had lost their patent and the influence of population size and economics on prices. Results: 25 European countries participated. Currently we see (a) variable approaches to the pricing of generic cancer medicines, which will continue; (b) no concerns with substitution for oral generic cancer medicines; (c) substantial price reductions versus originators for generic capecitabine (up to-93.1%), generic imatinib (up to-97.8%) and generic temozolomide (up to-80.7%). Prices for oncology medicines are not indication specific, and are not affected by population size although influenced by pricing approaches. There have also been price increases for some nonpatented cancer medicines following manufacturer changes although now stabilising. Conclusion: The considerable price reductions seen for some generics means health authorities should further encourage the use of generic oncology medicines when they become available to fund increased volumes and new valued cancer medicines. Countries are also starting to address price increases for generics following changes in the manufacturer

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

No abstract

IntroductionThere are persistent gaps in access to affordable medicines. The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) includes medicines considered necessary for functional health systems.MethodsA generic price estimation formula was developed by reviewing published analyses of cost of production for medicines and assuming manufacture in India, which included costs of formulation, packaging, taxation and a 10% profit margin. Data on per-kilogram prices of active pharmaceutical ingredient exported from India were retrieved from an online database. Estimated prices were compared with the lowest globally available prices for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria medicines, and current prices in the UK, South Africa and India.ResultsThe estimation formula had good predictive accuracy for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria medicines. Estimated generic prices ranged from US$0.01 to US$1.45 per unit, with most in the lower end of this range. Lowest available prices were greater than estimated generic prices for 214/277 (77%) comparable items in the UK, 142/212 (67%) in South Africa and 118/298 (40%) in India. Lowest available prices were more than three times above estimated generic price for 47% of cases compared in the UK and 22% in South Africa.ConclusionA wide range of medicines in the EML can be profitably manufactured at very low cost. Most EML medicines are sold in the UK and South Africa at prices significantly higher than those estimated from production costs. Generic price estimation and international price comparisons could empower government price negotiations and support cost-effectiveness calculations.

IntroductionHigh prices for insulin pose a barrier to treatment for people living with diabetes, with an estimated 50% of 100 million patients needing insulin lacking reliable access. As insulin analogues replace regular human insulin (RHI) globally, their relative prices will become increasingly important. Three originator companies control 96% of the global insulin market, and few biosimilar insulins are available. We estimated the price reductions that could be achieved if numerous biosimilar manufacturers entered the insulin market.MethodsData on the price of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) exported from India were retrieved from an online customs database. Manufacturers of insulins were contacted for price quotes. Where market API prices could not be identified, prices were estimated based on comparison of similarity, in terms of manufacturing process, with APIs for which prices were available. Potential biosimilar prices were estimated by adding costs of excipients, formulation, transport, development and regulatory costs, and a profit margin.ResultsThe manufacturing processes for RHI and insulin analogues are similar. API prices were US$24 750/kg for RHI, US$68 757/kg for insulin glargine and an estimated US$100 000/kg for other analogues. Estimated biosimilar prices were US$48–71 per patient per year for RHI, US$49–72 for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and US$78–133 for analogues (except detemir: US$283–365).ConclusionTreatment with biosimilar RHI and insulin NPH could cost ≤US$72 per year and with insulin analogues ≤US$133 per year. Estimated biosimilar prices were markedly lower than the current prices for insulin analogues. Widespread availability at estimated prices may allow substantial savings globally.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to estimate lowest possible treatment costs for four novel cancer drugs, hypothesising that generic manufacturing could significantly reduce treatment costs.SettingThis research was carried out in a non-clinical research setting using secondary data.ParticipantsThere were no human participants in the study. Four drugs were selected for the study: bortezomib, dasatinib, everolimus and gefitinib. These medications were selected according to their clinical importance, novel pharmaceutical actions and the availability of generic price data.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTarget costs for treatment were to be generated for each indication for each treatment. The primary outcome measure was the target cost according to a production cost calculation algorithm. The secondary outcome measure was the target cost as the lowest available generic price; this was necessary where export data were not available to generate an estimate from our cost calculation algorithm. Other outcomes included patent expiry dates and total eligible treatment populations.ResultsTarget prices were £411 per cycle for bortezomib, £9 per month for dasatinib, £852 per month for everolimus and £10 per month for gefitinib. Compared with current list prices in England, these target prices would represent reductions of 74–99.6%. Patent expiry dates were bortezomib 2014–22, dasatinib 2020–26, everolimus 2019–25 and gefitinib 2017. The total global eligible treatment population in 1 year is 769 736.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that affordable drug treatment costs are possible for novel cancer drugs, suggesting that new therapeutic options can be made available to patients and doctors worldwide. Assessing treatment cost estimations alongside cost-effectiveness evaluations is an important area of future research.

ObjectiveTo calculate sustainable generic prices for 4 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).BackgroundTKIs have proven survival benefits in the treatment of several cancers, including chronic myeloid leukaemia, breast, liver, renal and lung cancer. However, current high prices are a barrier to treatment. Mass production of low-cost generic antiretrovirals has led to over 13 million people being on HIV/AIDS treatment worldwide. This analysis estimates target prices for generic TKIs, assuming similar methods of mass production.MethodsFour TKIs with patent expiry dates in the next 5 years were selected for analysis: imatinib, erlotinib, lapatinib and sorafenib. Chemistry, dosing, published data on per-kilogram pricing for commercial transactions of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), and quotes from manufacturers were used to estimate costs of production. Analysis included costs of excipients, formulation, packaging, shipping and a 50% profit margin. Target prices were compared with current prices. Global numbers of patients eligible for treatment with each TKI were estimated.ResultsAPI costs per kg were $347–$746 for imatinib, $2470 for erlotinib, $4671 for lapatinib, and $3000 for sorafenib. Basing on annual dose requirements, costs of formulation/packaging and a 50% profit margin, target generic prices per person-year were $128–$216 for imatinib, $240 for erlotinib, $1450 for sorafenib, and $4020 for lapatinib. Over 1 million people would be newly eligible to start treatment with these TKIs annually.ConclusionsMass generic production of several TKIs could achieve treatment prices in the range of $128–$4020 per person-year, versus current US prices of $75161–$139 138. Generic TKIs could allow significant savings and scaling-up of treatment globally, for over 1 million eligible patients.

No abstract