Evidence Underlying Policy Proposals for Sustainable Anticancer Drug Prices: A Systematic Review.

The findings suggest that despite the urgency of the search for proposals that lead to sustainable drug prices, careful and structured testing of proposals is needed because the implications for access to drug treatment can be substantial.

The financial consequences of high-expenditure innovative drugs and the association of these consequences with access to cancer treatment are substantial. With oncology being one of the major spending blocks of care and research, innovative policies are needed to secure the sustainability and accessibility of health care systems. Despite this strong interest, structured approaches are missing to date, and proposals are often based on opinion rather than fact.

Of the 4775 articles screened, 80 were selected, and an inventory of 23 policies to reduce medicine prices was created. Proposals were diverse but mainly applied the strengthening of competition as an underlying mechanism to reduce drug prices. Of the 80 studies, 23 used quantitative models, but existing evidence was insufficient to deduce price effects, especially considering system disruptiveness. The available evidence was used to identify promising proposals for which testing may be beneficial: transparency, delinkage, 2-part pricing, public research, orphan drug reform, and public clinical trials.

To evaluate an inventory of policies to reduce drug prices at market launch and analyze the quantitative evidence on which these policies are based.

For this systematic review, a literature search of the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Business Source Premier, ABI/Inform, World Health Organization, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development databases was conducted for articles published between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2017. Publications that described proposed policies with a direct or obvious indirect association with pharmaceutical prices at market launch and with relevance to oncology and high-income countries were included. Evidence basis was assessed per article, and quantitative articles were categorized according to time and data use. Main price mechanisms and scored system disruptiveness per proposal were identified. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019.