Mario García-Díaz, Zuzana Špacírová, Leticia García-Mochón, Jaime Espín
{"title":"考虑药物和其他卫生技术定价和报销决策中公共投资的机制:范围审查。","authors":"Mario García-Díaz, Zuzana Špacírová, Leticia García-Mochón, Jaime Espín","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00994-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pricing and reimbursement (P&R) systems do not normally use public investments in research and development (R&D) as criteria when negotiating the prices and reimbursement of health technologies.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to find mechanisms that consider public investment in R&D when negotiating P&R or obtaining a fair return on this public investment METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. A total of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) and a grey literature information source (Google Scholar) were searched. Eligible articles were published before 2024 and described how public sector investment in R&D is considered in price negotiations or how the public sector can obtain a return on R&D investment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review found 28 papers referring to mechanisms that take into account public investment in R&D to reduce prices in the P&R negotiation (e.g. delinkage R&D model, advance purchase agreement and government patent use), to obtain a fair return on investment (e.g. royalties and venture philanthropy) or to save costs or share risks (e.g. social impact bonds and prize fund). Examples are provided of health technologies that used these mechanisms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Policymakers have several resources they can draw from to ensure a fair and efficient use of public R&D funds. However, there is little evidence that these instruments are widely used in practice, and there is no political consensus on what mechanism is the most appropriate and why. In view of the above, it is essential to create a common framework that will ensure a fairer and more affordable system for public health budgets.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanisms Considering Public Investment in Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Mario García-Díaz, Zuzana Špacírová, Leticia García-Mochón, Jaime Espín\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-025-00994-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pricing and reimbursement (P&R) systems do not normally use public investments in research and development (R&D) as criteria when negotiating the prices and reimbursement of health technologies.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to find mechanisms that consider public investment in R&D when negotiating P&R or obtaining a fair return on this public investment METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. A total of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) and a grey literature information source (Google Scholar) were searched. Eligible articles were published before 2024 and described how public sector investment in R&D is considered in price negotiations or how the public sector can obtain a return on R&D investment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review found 28 papers referring to mechanisms that take into account public investment in R&D to reduce prices in the P&R negotiation (e.g. delinkage R&D model, advance purchase agreement and government patent use), to obtain a fair return on investment (e.g. royalties and venture philanthropy) or to save costs or share risks (e.g. social impact bonds and prize fund). Examples are provided of health technologies that used these mechanisms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Policymakers have several resources they can draw from to ensure a fair and efficient use of public R&D funds. However, there is little evidence that these instruments are widely used in practice, and there is no political consensus on what mechanism is the most appropriate and why. In view of the above, it is essential to create a common framework that will ensure a fairer and more affordable system for public health budgets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00994-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00994-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:定价和报销(P&R)系统在谈判卫生技术的价格和报销时,通常不使用研发(R&D)的公共投资作为标准。目的:目的是寻找在谈判损益表或获得这种公共投资的公平回报时考虑公共研发投资的机制方法:我们进行了范围审查。共检索了PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science四个数据库和一个灰色文献信息源b谷歌Scholar。符合条件的文章在2024年之前发表,描述了在价格谈判中如何考虑公共部门对研发的投资,或者公共部门如何从研发投资中获得回报。结果:28篇论文涉及考虑公共研发投资的机制,以降低P&R谈判中的价格(如delinkage研发模式、预购协议和政府专利使用)、获得公平的投资回报(如特许权使用费和风险慈善事业)或节省成本或分担风险(如社会影响债券和奖励基金)。提供了使用这些机制的卫生技术实例。结论:决策者可以利用一些资源来确保公平和有效地使用公共研发资金。然而,几乎没有证据表明这些工具在实践中被广泛使用,而且对于哪种机制最合适以及为什么最合适,也没有达成政治共识。鉴于上述情况,必须建立一个共同框架,以确保建立一个更公平和更负担得起的公共卫生预算制度。
Mechanisms Considering Public Investment in Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A Scoping Review.
Background: Pricing and reimbursement (P&R) systems do not normally use public investments in research and development (R&D) as criteria when negotiating the prices and reimbursement of health technologies.
Objective: The objective was to find mechanisms that consider public investment in R&D when negotiating P&R or obtaining a fair return on this public investment METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. A total of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) and a grey literature information source (Google Scholar) were searched. Eligible articles were published before 2024 and described how public sector investment in R&D is considered in price negotiations or how the public sector can obtain a return on R&D investment.
Results: The review found 28 papers referring to mechanisms that take into account public investment in R&D to reduce prices in the P&R negotiation (e.g. delinkage R&D model, advance purchase agreement and government patent use), to obtain a fair return on investment (e.g. royalties and venture philanthropy) or to save costs or share risks (e.g. social impact bonds and prize fund). Examples are provided of health technologies that used these mechanisms.
Conclusions: Policymakers have several resources they can draw from to ensure a fair and efficient use of public R&D funds. However, there is little evidence that these instruments are widely used in practice, and there is no political consensus on what mechanism is the most appropriate and why. In view of the above, it is essential to create a common framework that will ensure a fairer and more affordable system for public health budgets.
期刊介绍:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy.
While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.