A study conducted by researchers at PHAR found that hospitals collect substantial profits from administering injectable and infused drugs. The share of profits retained by hospitals is far greater than than the amount retained by physicians who administer the same drugs in an office setting. Hospital profits also exceed the amount that goes to the manufacturer of these products. While pharmaceutical manufacturers are often the focus of criticism regarding drug pricing, the role of others in the supply chain, including hospitals, should be considered. A summary of the findings can be found here, and the full report here.
News & Announcements
Chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is a common infectious disease that affects 2.4 million people in the United States. The clinical and economic impact of HCV on the US healthcare system is significant. Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments have been shown to provide a cure for HCV in most individuals, however there has been debate over the price. Building upon a recently published analysis, PHAR investigated the costs of using DAAs to treat individuals with HCV, and found there were substantial savings associated with decreased consequences of the disease, far exceeding the costs of the treatments themselves. A report summarizing these findings can be found here.
Los Angeles, CA and Boston, MA – July 18, 2019 – PHAR LLC (Los Angeles, CA and Boston, MA), a boutique health care consultancy dedicated to the practice of health economics and outcomes research, announces the appointment of Mallik Greene, BPharm, PhD, DBA to the position of Vice President for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (email@example.com).
Dr. Greene has worked in the pharmaceutical industry for nearly two decades, conducting hundreds of health economic and outcomes research studies using a wide variety of innovative research methods and study designs. Working at such globally recognized pharmaceutical companies as Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Otsuka, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Greene developed and implemented successful strategies to improve brand differentiation and demonstrate value to payers, physicians and patients. His work has resulted in more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in dozens of journals and conferences, spanning a wide variety of therapeutic areas. Dr. Greene’s experience and training—including a degree in pharmacy, a PhD in health economics and outcomes research, post-doctoral fellowship in health economics and outcomes research and a doctorate in business administration—make him uniquely suited to help PHAR’s clients to achieve their goals.
PHAR’s highly trained staff has been providing health economics and outcomes research services to the life science industry for more than 15 years. PHAR’s unique business model brings clinical and methodologic expertise to every engagement by including a pharmacist, a physician, a doctoral level researcher, and a statistician on every project team. By bringing this unparalleled level of strategic insight and methodologic rigor to every project, PHAR has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and garnered numerous awards for its work in the pharmaceutical, medical device, and diagnostics industries.
Rising costs, expensive new products, and heightened scrutiny of pharmaceutical industry practices combine to increase the challenge HEOR professionals face in developing a clear value proposition. This challenge makes PHAR LLC’s hiring of Mallik Greene as VP, HEOR particularly timely. “Dr. Greene’s training and experience will make him a unique asset to researchers and leaders in the pharmaceutical industry as they work to differentiate and demonstrate the value proposition of their brand,” commented Michael Broder, MD, MSHS, President of PHAR LLC.
PHAR announced today the final results of a study, published in Current Medical Research and Opinion, which found that pre-launch predictions of the budget impact of newly developed drugs tended to be considerable overestimates of their actual sales. The study examined the accuracy of 25 publicly released predictions for the cost of drugs launched in a variety of indications since 2012. Overall, the predicted budget impact was 5.5 times the actual budget impact of the drug. Ten estimates were off by more than $1 billion: 8 overestimated drug sales by more than a billion; and 2 underestimated it by at least that amount. Overestimating budget impact may lead to early access restrictions, higher copays, and other changes that ultimately impact patients. More information about the study is available here and the detailed results can be viewed here.
A new PHAR study compared predictions of health care costs made prior to the introduction of new drugs to the actual sales of the drugs. Fourteen drugs were examined: two cholesterol lowering drugs; three drugs to treat various forms of cancer; three for hepatitis C; two for obesity management; and one each for cystic fibrosis, heart failure, psoriasis, and diabetes. In many cases, sales predictions were dramatically overestimated, sometimes by billions of dollars. In one example, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) predicted the one-year cost of the two PCSK9 inhibitors would be $7.2 billion. Based on the initial quarters of reported sales, PHAR found that the actual number will be closer to $83 million, an overestimate of $7.1 billion. Asked to comment on the findings, Dr. Broder said, “Overestimating drug costs by so much cannot lead to good decision making… it is likely that patients feel the negative effects of such predictions in the form of early access restrictions and higher copayments.” More details about the study are available here.
A study completed by PHAR and researchers at bioTheranostics Inc found that use of bioTheranostics’ CancerTYPE ID® molecular test is a cost-effective approach to standardizing diagnostic methods for patients with metastatic tumors of uncertain origin while improving patient care. The study was the first of its kind to examine the implications of molecular classification in standardizing the diagnostic process for metastatic cancer. It was designed to estimate the clinical and economic tradeoffs of using CancerTYPE ID to aid in identifying the primary site of difficult-to-diagnose metastatic cancers and to explore whether the gene assay could be used to standardize the diagnostic process and costs for clinicians, payers, and patients. It was recently published in the Journal of Medical Economics and can be read here. The full press release can be accessed here.