Cost-effectiveness, pharmaceutical pricing and the value flower - doing some gardening.

IF 3.6 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2026-12-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-07 DOI:10.1007/s11019-026-10373-z
Lars Sandman, Martin Henriksson, Erik Gustavsson, David Lindqvist, Niklas Juth
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness, pharmaceutical pricing and the value flower - doing some gardening.","authors":"Lars Sandman, Martin Henriksson, Erik Gustavsson, David Lindqvist, Niklas Juth","doi":"10.1007/s11019-026-10373-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the recent years, ISPOR has proposed a number of values that could be taken into account in health technology assessments, for instance when doing an evaluation of what determines society's price for pharmaceutical treatments. These includes values that are not usually considered in health economic evaluation of pharmaceutical pricing, for instance option value, the value of hope and knowing, insurance value, the value of avoiding contagion, and scientific spillover. If these values were included in assessments of pricing of pharmaceutical, it would lead to broadening the cost-effectiveness analysis. We scrutinize the these suggested new value petals of the so-called value flower from two points of views: ethical value theory and the practical implications for a public healthcare system of a European kind, which factors in considerations of traditional cost-effectiveness (primarily in terms of net cost and quality-adjusted life years) and justice (primarily in terms of severity) from the outset. We argue that some of the suggested value petals should not be included in the health economic assessment for several reasons related to value theory or practical considerations in the welfare state: some are mutually conflicting, some do not point out unequivocally positive values, some entails double counting, some are already included in healthcare systems with universal coverage, or can be better handled by other means than by affecting pharmaceutical pricing. A few new petals have potential merit, for instance equity, but much work, both normative and empirical, is required if they should be included in the assessment of pharmaceuticals.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"979-994"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13652857/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-026-10373-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the recent years, ISPOR has proposed a number of values that could be taken into account in health technology assessments, for instance when doing an evaluation of what determines society's price for pharmaceutical treatments. These includes values that are not usually considered in health economic evaluation of pharmaceutical pricing, for instance option value, the value of hope and knowing, insurance value, the value of avoiding contagion, and scientific spillover. If these values were included in assessments of pricing of pharmaceutical, it would lead to broadening the cost-effectiveness analysis. We scrutinize the these suggested new value petals of the so-called value flower from two points of views: ethical value theory and the practical implications for a public healthcare system of a European kind, which factors in considerations of traditional cost-effectiveness (primarily in terms of net cost and quality-adjusted life years) and justice (primarily in terms of severity) from the outset. We argue that some of the suggested value petals should not be included in the health economic assessment for several reasons related to value theory or practical considerations in the welfare state: some are mutually conflicting, some do not point out unequivocally positive values, some entails double counting, some are already included in healthcare systems with universal coverage, or can be better handled by other means than by affecting pharmaceutical pricing. A few new petals have potential merit, for instance equity, but much work, both normative and empirical, is required if they should be included in the assessment of pharmaceuticals.

成本效益,药品定价和价值花-做一些园艺。
近年来,卫生技术政策研究所提出了一些可在卫生技术评估中加以考虑的价值,例如在评估决定社会药物治疗价格的因素时。这些价值包括在药品定价的卫生经济评估中通常不考虑的价值,例如期权价值、希望和了解的价值、保险价值、避免传染的价值和科学溢出。如果将这些价值纳入药品定价的评估,将导致扩大成本效益分析。我们从两个角度仔细审视这些所谓价值之花的新价值花瓣:伦理价值理论和对欧洲公共医疗保健系统的实际影响,从一开始就考虑到传统的成本效益(主要是净成本和质量调整后的生命年)和正义(主要是严重程度)。我们认为,由于与福利国家的价值理论或实践考虑相关的几个原因,一些建议的价值花瓣不应包括在健康经济评估中:有些是相互冲突的,有些没有明确指出积极的价值,有些需要重复计算,有些已经包括在全民覆盖的医疗保健系统中,或者可以通过其他方式更好地处理,而不是通过影响药品定价。一些新的花瓣有潜在的优点,例如公平,但如果要将它们纳入药品评估,则需要进行大量的规范和经验工作。
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
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书