Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Global Health. 2011 October 12; Volume 7 (Issue 39); DOI:10.1186/1744-8603-7-39
Moon S, Jambert E, Childs M, von Schoen-Angerer T
Global Health. 2011 October 12; Volume 7 (Issue 39); DOI:10.1186/1744-8603-7-39
BACKGROUND
Tiered pricing - the concept of selling drugs and vaccines in developing countries at prices systematically lower than in industrialized countries - has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to medicines for the poor. We carried out case studies based on a review of international drug price developments for antiretrovirals, artemisinin combination therapies, drug-resistant tuberculosis medicines, liposomal amphotericin B (for visceral leishmaniasis), and pneumococcal vaccines.
DISCUSSION
We found several critical shortcomings to tiered pricing: it is inferior to competition for achieving the lowest sustainable prices; it often involves arbitrary divisions between markets and/or countries, which can lead to very high prices for middle-income markets; and it leaves a disproportionate amount of decision-making power in the hands of sellers vis-à-vis consumers. In many developing countries, resources are often stretched so tight that affordability can only be approached by selling medicines at or near the cost of production. Policies that “de-link” the financing of R&D from the price of medicines merit further attention, since they can reward innovation while exploiting robust competition in production to generate the lowest sustainable prices. However, in special cases - such as when market volumes are very small or multi-source production capacity is lacking - tiered pricing may offer the only practical option to meet short-term needs for access to a product. In such cases, steps should be taken to ensure affordability and availability in the longer-term.
SUMMARY To ensure access to medicines for populations in need, alternate strategies should be explored that harness the power of competition, avoid arbitrary market segmentation, and/or recognize government responsibilities. Competition should generally be the default option for achieving affordability, as it has proven superior to tiered pricing for reliably achieving the lowest sustainable prices.
Tiered pricing - the concept of selling drugs and vaccines in developing countries at prices systematically lower than in industrialized countries - has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to medicines for the poor. We carried out case studies based on a review of international drug price developments for antiretrovirals, artemisinin combination therapies, drug-resistant tuberculosis medicines, liposomal amphotericin B (for visceral leishmaniasis), and pneumococcal vaccines.
DISCUSSION
We found several critical shortcomings to tiered pricing: it is inferior to competition for achieving the lowest sustainable prices; it often involves arbitrary divisions between markets and/or countries, which can lead to very high prices for middle-income markets; and it leaves a disproportionate amount of decision-making power in the hands of sellers vis-à-vis consumers. In many developing countries, resources are often stretched so tight that affordability can only be approached by selling medicines at or near the cost of production. Policies that “de-link” the financing of R&D from the price of medicines merit further attention, since they can reward innovation while exploiting robust competition in production to generate the lowest sustainable prices. However, in special cases - such as when market volumes are very small or multi-source production capacity is lacking - tiered pricing may offer the only practical option to meet short-term needs for access to a product. In such cases, steps should be taken to ensure affordability and availability in the longer-term.
SUMMARY To ensure access to medicines for populations in need, alternate strategies should be explored that harness the power of competition, avoid arbitrary market segmentation, and/or recognize government responsibilities. Competition should generally be the default option for achieving affordability, as it has proven superior to tiered pricing for reliably achieving the lowest sustainable prices.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
AIDS Care. 2008 September 1; Volume 20 (Issue 8); DOI:10.1080/09540120701768446
Moon S, Van Leemput L, Durier N, Jambert E, Dahmane A, et al.
AIDS Care. 2008 September 1; Volume 20 (Issue 8); DOI:10.1080/09540120701768446
Financial access to HIV care and treatment can be difficult for many people in China, where the government provides free antiretroviral drugs but does not cover the cost of other medically necessary components, such as lab tests and drugs for opportunistic infections. This article estimates out-of-pocket costs for treatment and care that a person living with HIV/AIDS in China might face over the course of one year. Data comes from two treatment projects run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Nanning, Guangxi Province and Xiangfan, Hubei Province. Based on the national treatment guidelines, we estimated costs for seven different patient profiles ranging from WHO Clinical Stages I through IV. We found that patients face significant financial barriers to even qualify for the free ARV program. For those who do, HIV care and treatment can be a catastrophic health expenditure, with cumulative patient contributions ranging from approximately US$200-3939/year in Nanning and US$13-1179/year in Xiangfan, depending on the patient's clinical stage of HIV infection. In Nanning, these expenses translate as up to 340% of an urban resident's annual income or 1200% for rural residents; in Xiangfan, expenses rise to 116% of annual income for city dwellers and 295% in rural areas. While providing ARV drugs free of charge is an important step, the costs of other components of care constitute important financial barriers that may exclude patients from accessing appropriate care. Such barriers can also lead to undesirable outcomes in the future, such as impoverishment of AIDS-affected households, higher ARV drug-resistance rates and greater need for complex, expensive second-line antiretroviral drugs.