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

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Matthew S Hanchard
{"title":"Debates over orphan drug pricing: a meta-narrative literature review.","authors":"Matthew S Hanchard","doi":"10.1186/s13023-025-03634-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rare disease prevalence rates are increasing rapidly worldwide, as are the cost of orphan indication drugs used to treat them, posing significant strain on many healthcare systems. In response, a set of tensions have arisen within academic, activist, advocacy, industry, and policy circles over orphan drug pricing. Yet there has to date been no unifying review of the literature engaging critically with these tensions. Addressing this gap, the article examines the narratives in circulation around orphan pricing, the traditions and epistemic bases they draw on, and their points of contestation/coalescence. It does so through a meta-narrative literature review, finding three core narratives. One involves dispute over outlay costs for developing new orphan drugs, often drawing on normative health economics with a base in practical idealism. It argues that (bio)pharmaceutical manufacturers misuse policy incentives to profit excessively through monopoly capitalism. A second narrative draws on both empirical and normative health economics (often steeped in empiricism paired with a utilitarian standpoint). It contends that high orphan drug prices signify a healthy market and justifiably support longer-term innovation while promoting wider equity of access. A third (midway) narrative draws on the sociology of health and innovation studies alongside normative health economics and health policy studies to suggest alternative models of innovation and valuation. As a unifying meta-narrative, the review finds a sustained call for reform, centred on welfare economics and resource allocation, where current incentives and regulations are held to be insufficient. Overall, the article recommends that regulators look to alternative models of innovation steeped in social science thinking to modify reviewing appraisal, coverage, and reimbursement processes for orphan drugs. Also, that greater patient inclusion and transparency would help include a wider range of intangible social factors that rare disease patients face in accessing high priced orphan drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19651,"journal":{"name":"Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases","volume":"20 1","pages":"107"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887186/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-025-03634-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rare disease prevalence rates are increasing rapidly worldwide, as are the cost of orphan indication drugs used to treat them, posing significant strain on many healthcare systems. In response, a set of tensions have arisen within academic, activist, advocacy, industry, and policy circles over orphan drug pricing. Yet there has to date been no unifying review of the literature engaging critically with these tensions. Addressing this gap, the article examines the narratives in circulation around orphan pricing, the traditions and epistemic bases they draw on, and their points of contestation/coalescence. It does so through a meta-narrative literature review, finding three core narratives. One involves dispute over outlay costs for developing new orphan drugs, often drawing on normative health economics with a base in practical idealism. It argues that (bio)pharmaceutical manufacturers misuse policy incentives to profit excessively through monopoly capitalism. A second narrative draws on both empirical and normative health economics (often steeped in empiricism paired with a utilitarian standpoint). It contends that high orphan drug prices signify a healthy market and justifiably support longer-term innovation while promoting wider equity of access. A third (midway) narrative draws on the sociology of health and innovation studies alongside normative health economics and health policy studies to suggest alternative models of innovation and valuation. As a unifying meta-narrative, the review finds a sustained call for reform, centred on welfare economics and resource allocation, where current incentives and regulations are held to be insufficient. Overall, the article recommends that regulators look to alternative models of innovation steeped in social science thinking to modify reviewing appraisal, coverage, and reimbursement processes for orphan drugs. Also, that greater patient inclusion and transparency would help include a wider range of intangible social factors that rare disease patients face in accessing high priced orphan drugs.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.10%
发文量
418
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses all aspects of rare diseases and orphan drugs. The journal publishes high-quality reviews on specific rare diseases. In addition, the journal may consider articles on clinical trial outcome reports, either positive or negative, and articles on public health issues in the field of rare diseases and orphan drugs. The journal does not accept case reports.
×
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