The value of innovation under value-based pricing

References

• Gregson N, Sparrowhawk K, Mauskopf J, Paul J. Pricing medicines: Theory and practice, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005; 4(2): 121–30. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Carroll S. Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: Its role, specification, and prospects in a newly devolved NHS. 2011; York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Longo R, Longworth L, McCabe C, Wailoo A. The value of innovation. Decision support unit. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2009
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Lindsay AB, Buxton MJ, Culyer AJ, McCabe C, Walker S, etal. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: An opportunity not to be missed?. BMJ. 2008; 336(7638): 251–4. [PubMed Abstract] [PubMed CentralFull Text].
   Google Scholar
• Healy P, Pugatch M. Capturing value: Why dynamic efficiency should be considered in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. 2012; Stockholm: Stockholm Network.
   Google Scholar
• Rejon-Parrilla JC, Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Shah K, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garrison L, Towse A. The expanding value footprint of oncology treatments. London: Office of Health Economics. 2014
   Google Scholar
• Henshall C, Schuller T. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013; 29(4): 353–9. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012; 15(8): 1172–81. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Martin S, Soares MO, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, etal. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. 2013; York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Collins M, Latimer N. NICE's end of life decision making scheme: Impact on population health. BMJ. 2013; 346(7905): f1363. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Value based assessment methods consultation document. London: NICE. 2014
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE calls for a new approach to managing the entry of drugs into the NHS. NICE. 2014. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/nice-calls-for-a-new-approach-to-managing-the-entry-of-drugs-into-the-nhs [cited 15 July 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). The economic value of innovative health technologies. 2010. Ottawa: CADTH.
   Google Scholar
• Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Sussex J, Towse A. The R&D cost of a new medicine. 2012; London: Office of Health Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Refoios Camejo R, McGrath C, Miraldo M, Rutten F. The determinants of cost-effectiveness potential: An historical perspective on lipid-lowering therapies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013; 31(5): 445–54. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• McKellar M, Matthew F, Haiden H, Chernew M. The value of patent expiration. Forum Health Econ Policy. 2012; 15(2): 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Bojke C, Castelli A, Grasic K, Street A, Ward P. University of York. NHS productivity from 2004/5 to 2010/11. 2013; York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyle M. Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011; 29(1): 1–15. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Garrison J, Veenstra DL. The economic value of innovative treatments over the product life cycle: The case of targeted trastuzumab therapy for breast cancer. Value Health. 2009; 12(8): 1118–23. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Garrison J. Rewarding value creation to promote innovation in oncology: The importance of considering the global product life cycle. Oncologist. 2010; 15(Suppl 1): 49–57. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Grabner M, Johnson W, Abdulhalim AM, Kuznik A, Mullins CD. The value of Atorvastatin over the product life cycle in the United States. Clin Ther. 2011; 33(10): 1433–43. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Lu Y, Penrod JR, Sood N, Woodby S, Philipson T. Dynamic cost-effectiveness of oncology drugs. Am J Manag Care. 2012; 18(11 Suppl): S249–56. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Millier A, Briquet B, Aballea S, Toumi M. Should changes in drug price over time be considered in cost-effectiveness analyses? Value In Health. 2014
   Google Scholar
• Hoyle M, Anderson R. Whose costs and benefits? Why economic evaluations should simulate both prevalent and all future incident patient cohorts. Med Decis Mak. 2010; 30(4): 426–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHS. The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 2014. 2013; London: Department of Health London.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer E. Deep discounts allow Remicade biosimilar to grab 50% of Norway's market. FiercePharma 2015. Available from: http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/deep-discounts-allow-remicade-biosimilar-grab-50-norways-market/2015-04-22 [cited 15 July 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Mak. 1998; 18(2 Suppl): S68–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe C, Edlin R, Hall P. Navigating time and uncertainty in health technology appraisal: Would a map help?. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013; 31(9): 731–7. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, McKenna C, etal. Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies. 2011; York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh F. Superbugs to kill ‘more than cancer’ by 2050. BBC News.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE. 2013
   Google Scholar
• Ethgen O, Standaert B. Population-versus cohort-based modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012; 30(3): 171–81. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Mar J, Sainz-Ezkerra M, Miranda-Serrano E. Calculation of prevalence with Markov models: Budget impact analysis of thrombolysis for stroke. Med Decis Mak. 2008; 28(4): 481–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekarsky B. Should financial incentives be used to differentially reward ‘me-too’ and innovative drugs?. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28(1): 1–17. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Smith R, Coast J. The true cost of antimicrobial resistance. BMJ. 2013; 346(7899): 1493.
   Google Scholar
• White AR, Blaser M, Carrs O, Cassell G, Fishman N, Guidos R, etal. Effective antibacterials: At what cost? The economics of antibacterial resistance and its control. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011; 66(9): 1948–53. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Scandlen-Finken L, Wertheimer A. Incentivizing antibiotic research and development. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. 2015
   Google Scholar
• Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation. J Health Econ. 2008; 27(5): 1224–36. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption. J Health Econ. 2013; 32(1): 172–80. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Lundin D, Ramsberg J. Dynamic cost-effectiveness: A more efficient reimbursement criterion. Forum Health Econ Policy. 2008; 11(2): 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• McCabe C. What is cost-utility analysis. London: Hayward Medical Communications. 2009
   Google Scholar