TY - JOUR
T1 - Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting
T2 - δ1: cost effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing
AU - Alkhatib, Nimer S.
AU - Ramos, Kenneth
AU - Erstad, Brian
AU - Slack, Marion
AU - McBride, Ali
AU - Bhattacharjee, Sandipan
AU - Abraham, Ivo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The first dimension (δ1) estimates prices on the basis of cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA). We describe this dimension’s methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. Materials and methods: CEA and CUA were performed using established methods. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC), specifically the PSA incremental cost-effectiveness (PSA ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio generated CEACs (PSA ICUR). Price of treatment was estimated at three certainty levels (0%, turning point%, 100%). The marketed drug price at turning point was used to estimate prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels, as per PSA ICER and PSA ICUR-generated CEACs. The resulting prices were pooled, inflated, and simulated by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) methods to estimate the dimension-specific price based on CEA and CUA (DSPCEA/CUA). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-years (2019–2021). Results: Turning points were estimated at the 50% certainty level in both PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACS. At these points, the wholesale acquisition cost for osimertinib was $14,616 (30-day prescription); inflated by 0.44% for 1-year and by 0.72% for 2-year contracts. Additional prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels were quantified based on the PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACs. The MCS yielded a DSPCEA/CUA of $16,391 for the 1-year contract and a DSPCEA/CUA at $16,677 for the 2-year contract for a 30-day prescription. Conclusions: We demonstrated that conventional CEA and CUA methods generate price estimates at varying levels of certainty that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.
AB - Aims: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The first dimension (δ1) estimates prices on the basis of cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA). We describe this dimension’s methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. Materials and methods: CEA and CUA were performed using established methods. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC), specifically the PSA incremental cost-effectiveness (PSA ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio generated CEACs (PSA ICUR). Price of treatment was estimated at three certainty levels (0%, turning point%, 100%). The marketed drug price at turning point was used to estimate prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels, as per PSA ICER and PSA ICUR-generated CEACs. The resulting prices were pooled, inflated, and simulated by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) methods to estimate the dimension-specific price based on CEA and CUA (DSPCEA/CUA). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-years (2019–2021). Results: Turning points were estimated at the 50% certainty level in both PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACS. At these points, the wholesale acquisition cost for osimertinib was $14,616 (30-day prescription); inflated by 0.44% for 1-year and by 0.72% for 2-year contracts. Additional prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels were quantified based on the PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACs. The MCS yielded a DSPCEA/CUA of $16,391 for the 1-year contract and a DSPCEA/CUA at $16,677 for the 2-year contract for a 30-day prescription. Conclusions: We demonstrated that conventional CEA and CUA methods generate price estimates at varying levels of certainty that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.
KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis
KW - cost-utility analysis
KW - lung cancer
KW - osimertinib
KW - outcome-based contracting
KW - pricing
KW - pricing methods
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090451889&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090451889&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13696998.2020.1815025
DO - 10.1080/13696998.2020.1815025
M3 - Article
C2 - 32845794
AN - SCOPUS:85090451889
VL - 23
SP - 1215
EP - 1222
JO - Journal of Medical Economics
JF - Journal of Medical Economics
SN - 1369-6998
IS - 11
ER -