Joseph F Levy1, Patrick D Meek2, Marjorie A Rosenberg3. 1. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Population Health Sciences, Madison, WI, USA (JFL) 2. Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences Department of Pharmacy, Research Institute for Health Outcomes, Albany, NY, USA (PDM) 3. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Actuarial Science, Risk Management and Insurance and Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Madison, WI, USA (MAR)
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the United States, more than 10% of national health expenditures are for prescription drugs. Assessing drug costs in US economic evaluation studies is not consistent, as the true acquisition cost of a drug is not known by decision modelers. Current US practice focuses on identifying one reasonable drug cost and imposing some distributional assumption to assess uncertainty. METHODS: We propose a set of Rules based on current pharmacy practice that account for the heterogeneity of drug product costs. The set of products derived from our Rules, and their associated costs, form an empirical distribution that can be used for more realistic sensitivity analyses and create transparency in drug cost parameter computation. The Rules specify an algorithmic process to select clinically equivalent drug products that reduce pill burden, use an appropriate package size, and assume uniform weighting of substitutable products. Three diverse examples show derived empirical distributions and are compared with previously reported cost estimates. RESULTS: The shapes of the empirical distributions among the 3 drugs differ dramatically, including multiple modes and different variation. Previously published estimates differed from the means of the empirical distributions. Published ranges for sensitivity analyses did not cover the ranges of the empirical distributions. In one example using lisinopril, the empirical mean cost of substitutable products was $444 (range = $23-$953) as compared with a published estimate of $305 (range = $51-$523). CONCLUSIONS: Our Rules create a simple and transparent approach to creating cost estimates of drug products and assessing their variability. The approach is easily modified to include a subset of, or different weighting for, substitutable products. The derived empirical distribution is easily incorporated into 1-way or probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
INTRODUCTION: In the United States, more than 10% of national health expenditures are for prescription drugs. Assessing drug costs in US economic evaluation studies is not consistent, as the true acquisition cost of a drug is not known by decision modelers. Current US practice focuses on identifying one reasonable drug cost and imposing some distributional assumption to assess uncertainty. METHODS: We propose a set of Rules based on current pharmacy practice that account for the heterogeneity of drug product costs. The set of products derived from our Rules, and their associated costs, form an empirical distribution that can be used for more realistic sensitivity analyses and create transparency in drug cost parameter computation. The Rules specify an algorithmic process to select clinically equivalent drug products that reduce pill burden, use an appropriate package size, and assume uniform weighting of substitutable products. Three diverse examples show derived empirical distributions and are compared with previously reported cost estimates. RESULTS: The shapes of the empirical distributions among the 3 drugs differ dramatically, including multiple modes and different variation. Previously published estimates differed from the means of the empirical distributions. Published ranges for sensitivity analyses did not cover the ranges of the empirical distributions. In one example using lisinopril, the empirical mean cost of substitutable products was $444 (range = $23-$953) as compared with a published estimate of $305 (range = $51-$523). CONCLUSIONS: Our Rules create a simple and transparent approach to creating cost estimates of drug products and assessing their variability. The approach is easily modified to include a subset of, or different weighting for, substitutable products. The derived empirical distribution is easily incorporated into 1-way or probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
Authors: Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Chris McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Ron Akehurst; Martin Buxton; John Brazier; Tony O'Hagan Journal: Health Econ Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Andrew H Briggs; Milton C Weinstein; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Jonathan Karnon; Mark J Sculpher; A David Paltiel Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Craig I Coleman; Andrew D Straznitskas; Diana M Sobieraj; Jeffrey Kluger; Moise W Anglade Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ronald C Wielage; Megha Bansal; J Scott Andrews; Robert W Klein; Michael Happich Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Paul Dorian; Thitima Kongnakorn; Hemant Phatak; Dale A Rublee; Andreas Kuznik; Tereza Lanitis; Larry Z Liu; Uchenna Iloeje; Luis Hernandez; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-02-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: T Joseph Mattingly; Joseph F Levy; Julia F Slejko; Nneka C Onwudiwe; Eleanor M Perfetto Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.981