Biomedical subjects

David B Ridley

Publications and source records attributed to David B Ridley.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Price differentiation and transparency in the global pharmaceutical marketplace.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have increased the availability of their products and sometimes increased their own financial returns by charging lower prices outside of the US and by discounting to lower-income patients in the US. Examples include discounted HIV-AIDS drugs in developing countries and pharmaceutical manufacturers' discount cards in the US. Representatives of some international organisations argue that the price reductions are insufficient to make the medications widely available to lower-income patients. The WHO advocates both differential pricing and price transparency. While its efforts are well meaning, this paper identifies six concerns about its methods of comparing the price of a given molecule across manufacturers and across countries. More significantly, the WHO efforts to increase transparency are likely to lead to less price differentiation and less access to innovative pharmaceuticals. An important reason why manufacturers are reluctant to charge lower prices in lower-income countries is that they fear that such low prices will undermine the prices they charge to higher-income consumers. International organisations should not facilitate transparency but should dissuade governments from making price comparisons and basing their prices on those of lower-income countries. Furthermore, they should endeavour to keep low-priced and free drugs in the hands of the low-income consumers for which they were intended.

Cost Control↗

PubMed2003

The cost of inefficiency in US hospitals, 1985-1997.

We conducted a descriptive analysis of data from the Hospital Cost Report Information System from 1985 through 1997 on nonfederal, short-stay hospitals in the United States with 12-month reporting periods and valid data for the primary outcomes. The main outcome measures were change in number of beds, inpatient days, overhead cost per bed, and overhead cost per inpatient day. Actual outcomes were compared to predicted outcomes from: (1) a scenario holding the ratio of overhead cost per volume constant throughout the study period; and (2) a scenario holding overhead expenditures for 1985 constant as volume changed. The sample contained a mean of 3,605 hospitals per year. Volume declined annually by 2.2 beds (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 2.2; P < .001) and 997 inpatient days (95 percent CI, 992 to 1,003; P < .001). Overhead cost per bed increased by 3,388 dollars annually (95 percent CI, 3,049 to 3,737; P < .001) and overhead cost per inpatient day increased by 40 dollars annually (95 percent CI, 36 to 44; P < .001). In the constant ratio scenario, mean overhead cost per bed increased by 42,523 dollars (32 percent), and mean overhead cost per inpatient day increased by 435 dollars (59 percent). In the constant overhead cost scenario, overhead cost per bed increased 15 percent and overhead cost per inpatient day increased 19 percent. Hospital overhead costs are increasing faster than would be expected if efficiency were the primary goal of hospital management.

Bed Occupancy↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Differential pricing of pharmaceuticals in the internet age.

The Internet provides healthcare consumers with more information about available prices and provides pharmaceutical manufacturers with more information about consumers' willingness to pay. The former effect tends to undermine price differences while the latter tends to support them. We believe that the former effect will dominate and that the Internet will undermine differential pricing of pharmaceuticals. This should be a concern for manufacturers and policy makers, because differential pricing of pharmaceuticals can increase access for the poor and increase incentives for innovation. We suggest strategic responses for manufacturers and policy makers.

Drug Costs↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Developing drugs for developing countries.

Infectious and parasitic diseases create enormous health burdens, but because most of the people suffering from these diseases are poor, little is invested in developing treatments. We propose that developers of treatments for neglected diseases receive a "priority review voucher." The voucher could save an average of one year of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and be sold by the developer to the manufacturer of a blockbuster drug. In a well-functioning market, the voucher would speed access to highly valued treatments. Thus, the voucher could benefit consumers in both developing and developed countries at relatively low cost to the taxpayer.

Anti-Infective Agents↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Spending on postapproval drug safety.

Withdrawals of high-profile pharmaceuticals have focused attention on post-approval safety surveillance. There have been no systematic assessments of spending on postapproval safety. We surveyed drug manufacturers regarding safety efforts. Mean spending on postapproval safety per company in 2003 was 56 million dollars (0.3 percent of sales). Assuming a constant safety-to-sales ratio, we estimated that total spending on postapproval safety by the top twenty drug manufacturers was 800 million dollars in 2003. We also examined, using regression analysis, the relationship between the number of safety personnel and the number of initial adverse-event reports. This study offers information for the debate on proposed changes to safety surveillance.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗