Researchers study the reasoning behind drug costs

Researchers study the reasoning behind drug costs

On the 25th of November, research in Neurology headed as “Qualitative Study on the Prices of Drugs for Multiple Sclerosis: Gaming the System,” whose lead authors include Lindsey Alley, Kirbee Johnston, Daniel M. Hartung, and Dennis Bourdette, all based at the Oregon Health and Science University, came across proof for how the cost of drugs was impacted by profit maximization and corporate growth goals, and not the production cost.

Each page of the study smelled distinctly confirmation partiality.

The researchers collected the data through the 4 volunteers, forerunners in biotech directly linked to MS ailment-modifying therapy pricing or marketing, who took part in the half-hour long semi-structured interviews which took place over the phone. This was moderated and assessed by a professional in qualitative techniques together with the chief investigator. To-the-point online questionnaires were also put forward before the interview to deliver added information and insight regarding the discussion. All the interview calls were recorded. The interviews were confidential, however, and the executives are not named.

So what did the researchers end up concluding?

As opposed to the existing ideas that emphasize drug manufacture pricing, outcomes from the interviews imply that the prevailing price ecosystem, general corporate development, global cost differences and supply chain-linked distortions may contribute significantly to drug pricing decisions.

Most of the pharma firms make efforts to increase their revenues, no matter where they are based be it the European Union, India, Japan, the United States, or China. This is just how business works.

The researchers said: “The average annual wholesale acquisition cost for most DMTs now exceeds $80,000 a year.

“Yet, the specific rationale for ever-escalating launch prices and yearly (or twice yearly) price increase in excess of 15% for many drugs, including MS DMTs, has lacked transparency.”

,