As US policymakers consider the potential implications of the drug pricing reforms contained within the Build Back Better Act, OHE releases a critique of the Congressional Budget Office scoring, demonstrating that the estimates are highly uncertain and policymakers should exercise caution when relying upon them.
In recent years, US policymakers have been considering reforms to reduce drug spending, including allowing the government to directly limit prices and price growth for branded medicines. By reducing prices, such policies will negatively impact incentives for innovation, but the magnitudes and timings of these impacts are unclear.
For the growing number of multi-indication medicines, access may be delayed or even denied due to challenges in linking payment with a medicine’s value across those indications. We assembled a broad range of stakeholders to work toward consensus on the challenges and solutions which promote better patient access and sustainable health care and innovation.
Hitch, J., Firth, I., Hampson, G., Jofre-Bonet, M., Garau, M., Garrison, L. and Cookson, G.
The US spends significantly more on healthcare per person than other wealthy countries. H.R. 3 is a recent policy proposal aimed at reducing national spending on prescription drugs, one component of overall healthcare spending. Drug manufacturers would be required to negotiate prices with the US government, and prices would be capped at a level based on the prices of the drug in a set of foreign countries. Evaluation of a policy with such large potential impact on pharmaceutical revenues must consider potential negative effects on incentives to innovate.
In our previous blog we discussed how analyses of the impact of H.R. 3 published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) do not reflect the process of investing. Here, the third blog in our Series, we discuss another problem with their analysis: how they measure the output of innovation.