» Articles » PMID: 32908456

Establishing a Reasonable Price for an Orphan Drug

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2020 Sep 10
PMID 32908456
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This paper addresses the question of what a reasonable price for an orphan drug is. The research proposes a way to adjust an established payer/HTA body incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) to take account of differences in patient populations and costs of research and development in order to sustain prices that generate rates of return from investments in developing orphan drugs that are no greater than the industry average.

Methods: We investigated the cost of conducting research for orphan drugs as compared to non-orphan drugs, as well as patient population sizes targeted by orphans and non-orphans. We provided an empirical illustration based on novel drug approvals of orphan and non-orphan drugs of the FDA between 2011 and 2015 (N = 182).

Results: Using, for illustration, the NICE incremental CET (£20 K per QALY) as an anchor and adjusting by R&D costs and expected market revenue, we estimated the adjusted reasonable CET for orphan drugs to be £39.1 K per QALY at the orphan population cut-off and £78.3 K per QALY at the orphan population mid-point. For ultra-orphan drugs the adjusted CET was £937.1 K.

Conclusions: We propose one general method for establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug, based on the proposition that rates of return for investments in developing orphan drugs should not be greater than the industry average. More research is required on data and assumptions, but with the data and assumptions we use, we find that in order to secure such a reasonable price for an orphan drug, the CET for orphans would need to be higher. This could be one approach for establishing the maximum allowable price society should be willing to pay, although decision-makers may still wish to negotiate a lower price, or refuse to pay such a premium over the value-based price in order to treat these groups of patients.

Citing Articles

Debates over orphan drug pricing: a meta-narrative literature review.

Hanchard M Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2025; 20(1):107.

PMID: 40055799 PMC: 11887186. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-025-03634-2.


Rare disease challenges and potential actions in the Middle East.

Fasseeh A, Korra N, Aljedai A, Seyam A, Almudaiheem H, Al-Abdulkarim H Int J Equity Health. 2025; 24(1):56.

PMID: 40011905 PMC: 11863865. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-025-02388-4.


Application of four pricing models for orphan medicines: a case study for lumasiran.

Rosenberg N, Manders E, van den Berg S, Deesker L, Garrelfs S, de Visser S Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2024; 19(1):485.

PMID: 39716306 PMC: 11667848. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-024-03446-w.


Design and Features of Pricing and Payment Schemes for Health Technologies: A Scoping Review and a Proposal for a Flexible Need-Driven Classification.

Ardito V, Ciani O, Drummond M Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 43(1):5-29.

PMID: 39405025 PMC: 11724778. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01435-2.


Valuation of Medical Innovation Handling with Uncertainty and Risk.

Nuijten M, Capri S J Mark Access Health Policy. 2024; 12(3):199-208.

PMID: 39193543 PMC: 11348113. DOI: 10.3390/jmahp12030016.


References
1.
DiMasi J, Grabowski H, Hansen R . Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016; 47:20-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.01.012. View

2.
Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A . A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013; 16(8):1163-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.002. View

3.
Paul S, Mytelka D, Dunwiddie C, Persinger C, Munos B, Lindborg S . How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010; 9(3):203-14. DOI: 10.1038/nrd3078. View

4.
Linley W, Hughes D . Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2012; 22(8):948-64. DOI: 10.1002/hec.2872. View

5.
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S . Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(14):1-503, v-vi. PMC: 4781395. DOI: 10.3310/hta19140. View