Elizabeth Seeley1, Aaron S Kesselheim2. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University. 2. Harvard Medical School, Harvard University and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brighams and Women's Hospital.
Abstract
Issue: Brand-name prescription drug prices are increasing in the United States, putting pressure on payers and patients. Some manufacturers have responded by offering outcomes-based contracts, in which rebate levels are tied to a specified outcome in the target population. Goal: To assess the expected benefits and limitations of outcomes-based pharmaceutical contracts in the U.S., including their potential impact on prescription drug spending. Methods: Semistructured interviews with payers, manufacturers, and policy experts. Key Findings: Pharmaceutical manufacturers and some private payers are increasingly interested in outcomes-based contracts for high-cost brand-name drugs. But the power of these contracts to curb spending is questionable, largely because their applicability is restricted to a small subset of drugs and meaningful metrics to evaluate their impact are limited. There is no evidence that these contracts have resulted in less spending or better quality. Conclusions: Outcomes-based contracts are intended to shift pharmaceutical spending toward more effective drugs, but their impact is unclear. Voluntary testing and rigorous evaluation of such contracts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs could increase understanding of this new model.
Issue: Brand-name prescription drug prices are increasing in the United States, putting pressure on payers and patients. Some manufacturers have responded by offering outcomes-based contracts, in which rebate levels are tied to a specified outcome in the target population. Goal: To assess the expected benefits and limitations of outcomes-based pharmaceutical contracts in the U.S., including their potential impact on prescription drug spending. Methods: Semistructured interviews with payers, manufacturers, and policy experts. Key Findings: Pharmaceutical manufacturers and some private payers are increasingly interested in outcomes-based contracts for high-cost brand-name drugs. But the power of these contracts to curb spending is questionable, largely because their applicability is restricted to a small subset of drugs and meaningful metrics to evaluate their impact are limited. There is no evidence that these contracts have resulted in less spending or better quality. Conclusions: Outcomes-based contracts are intended to shift pharmaceutical spending toward more effective drugs, but their impact is unclear. Voluntary testing and rigorous evaluation of such contracts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs could increase understanding of this new model.
Authors: James D Chambers; Madison C Silver; Flora C Berklein; Joshua T Cohen; Peter J Neumann Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Joshua J Skydel; Alexander C Egilman; Joshua D Wallach; Reshma Ramachandran; Ravi Gupta; Joseph S Ross Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Alexander T Sandhu; Paul A Heidenreich; John Lin; Justin Parizo; Jay Bhattacharya; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Rick A Vreman; Thomas F Broekhoff; Hubert Gm Leufkens; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Wim G Goettsch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Natalie Bohm; Sarah Bermingham; Frank Grimsey Jones; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Alex Diamantopoulos; Jessica R Burton; Hamish Laing Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-09-04 Impact factor: 4.981