Assessing US Pharmaceutical Policy and Pricing Reform Legislation in Light of European Price and Cost Control Strategies.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Marc A Rodwin
{"title":"Assessing US Pharmaceutical Policy and Pricing Reform Legislation in Light of European Price and Cost Control Strategies.","authors":"Marc A Rodwin","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10041163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article compares the pharmaceutical pricing policies employed by public and private insurers in the United States with seven price and spending control strategies employed in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Differences between American and European policies explain why American pharmaceutical prices and per capita spending are higher than in European nations. The article then analyzes two recent bills as examples of significant American reform ideas-H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (introduced in 2019) and the Build Back Better Act (BBBA, introduced in 2021)-and compares them with European cost control strategies. Key drug price provisions of the BBBA were incorporated into the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). H.R. 3 would have used an international (mostly European) price index to cap U.S. prices; the BBBA would cap Medicare prices at a discount from average U.S. market prices. Neither bill would employ the key cost control strategies that European nations do. Both bills would have significantly less impact on prices than legislation that employs European-style cost controls. This article proposes steps that Congress could take in line with European strategies to lower purchase prices and costs for patients. These measures would have to overcome political obstacles that currently stymie reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"47 6","pages":"755-778"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10041163","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article compares the pharmaceutical pricing policies employed by public and private insurers in the United States with seven price and spending control strategies employed in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Differences between American and European policies explain why American pharmaceutical prices and per capita spending are higher than in European nations. The article then analyzes two recent bills as examples of significant American reform ideas-H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (introduced in 2019) and the Build Back Better Act (BBBA, introduced in 2021)-and compares them with European cost control strategies. Key drug price provisions of the BBBA were incorporated into the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). H.R. 3 would have used an international (mostly European) price index to cap U.S. prices; the BBBA would cap Medicare prices at a discount from average U.S. market prices. Neither bill would employ the key cost control strategies that European nations do. Both bills would have significantly less impact on prices than legislation that employs European-style cost controls. This article proposes steps that Congress could take in line with European strategies to lower purchase prices and costs for patients. These measures would have to overcome political obstacles that currently stymie reform.

参照欧洲价格和成本控制策略评估美国药品政策和价格改革立法。
本文比较了美国公共和私营保险公司采用的药品定价政策与英国、法国和德国采用的七种价格和支出控制策略。美国和欧洲政策的差异解释了为什么美国的药品价格和人均支出高于欧洲国家。然后,文章分析了最近的两个法案,作为美国重要改革思想的例子。3、伊利亚·e·卡明斯《立即降低药品成本法案》(2019年推出)和《更好地重建法案》(2021年推出),并将它们与欧洲成本控制策略进行比较。BBBA的主要药品价格规定被纳入最近颁布的通货膨胀减少法(IRA)。hr 3会使用国际(主要是欧洲)价格指数来限制美国的价格;BBBA将把医疗保险价格限制在低于美国平均市场价格的水平。这两项法案都不会采用欧洲国家所采用的关键成本控制策略。与采用欧洲式成本控制的立法相比,这两项法案对价格的影响都要小得多。本文提出了国会可以采取的与欧洲战略一致的措施,以降低患者的购买价格和成本。这些措施必须克服目前阻碍改革的政治障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信