Abstract
Background Economic evaluations of treatments increasingly employ price-threshold analyses. When a treatment has multiple indications, standard price-threshold analyses can be overly simplistic. We examine how rules governing indication-specific prices and reimbursement decisions impact value-based price analyses.
Methods We analyze a two-stage game between two players: the therapy’s manufacturer and payer purchasing it for patients. First, the manufacturer selects a price(s) that may be indication-specific. Then, the payer decides whether to provide reimbursement at the offered price(s). We assume known indication-specific demand. The manufacturer seeks to maximize profit, requiring non-negative profit. The payer seeks to maximize total population incremental net monetary benefit and will not pay more than their willingness-to-pay threshold. We consider game variants defined by constraints on the manufacturer’s ability to price and payer’s ability to provide reimbursement differentially by indication.
Results When the manufacturer and payer can both make indication-specific decisions, the problem simplifies to single-indication price-threshold analyses, and the manufacturer captures all the consumer surplus. When the manufacturer is restricted to one price and the payer must make an all-or-nothing reimbursement decision, the selected price is a weighted average of indication-specific threshold prices such that reimbursement of the more valuable indications subsidize reimbursement of the less valuable indications. With a single price and indication-specific coverage decisions, the manufacturer may select a high price and fewer patients receive treatment than in the first-best solution. However, there are also cases when the manufacturer selects a low price resulting in reimbursement for all indications and positive consumer surplus.
Conclusions When multiple indications exist for a given treatment, economic evaluations including price-threshold analyses should carefully consider jurisdiction-specific rules regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
