The concept of the value of new breakthrough therapies has become disconnected from the actual cost of them, but there are ways to better align the benefits and costs of treatments, according to Darius Lakdawalla, PhD, Quintiles Chair in Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Innovation at the University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy.
The concept of the value of new breakthrough therapies has become disconnected from the actual cost of them, but there are ways to better align the benefits and costs of treatments, according to Darius Lakdawalla, PhD, Quintiles Chair in Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Innovation at the University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy.
Transcript (slightly modified for readability)
How is value currently being determined for new breakthrough therapies?
Currently, the problem is that value has been disconnected from cost. So payers may be paying for a new therapy that comes out but that value might accrue over many years into many different constituencies. For example, with hepatitis C, the cost of the drug is born instantly as soon as the patient is given the therapy. But the benefits of that treatment accrue over decades. But the problem is that the payer who paid for the drug might not be around long enough to enjoy all of the benefits produced by the treatment.
How can the benefits and costs of breakthrough therapies be better aligned while treating large populations?
One way is to think about spreading out payments. For example, if instead of a cure we had a chronic therapy that was sold every year over the patient's lifetime that would actually, ironically, be a lot easier to finance even though patients would like it less than a therapy they took over a 90-day period and then stopped.
So being able to spread out payments through the same ways that help you spread for your house or your car would be one solution. It amounts to a financing problem rather than a healthcare or scientific problem. I think a role for the government might be in order here, because so many people benefit from these therapies above and beyond the patient. For example, others who will no longer get infected, people who benefit from liver transplants that are able to occur because hep C patients are no longer occupying as many donor livers. All these people also benefit and that might necessitate a role for the government.
New Insights Into Meth-Associated PAH Care Gaps: Anjali Vaidya, MD, on Closing the Divide
June 4th 2025Research from Anjali Vaidya, MD, FACC, FASE, FACP, Temple University Hospital, reveals critical care gaps for patients with methamphetamine-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), emphasizing the need for early diagnosis and integrated support.
Read More
Laundromats as a New Frontier in Community Health, Medicaid Outreach
May 29th 2025Lindsey Leininger, PhD, and Allister Chang, MPA, highlight the potential of laundromats as accessible, community-based settings to support Medicaid outreach, foster trust, and connect families with essential health and social services.
Listen
Tailored Dosing for MM Matters More Than Drug Count: Ajai Chari, MD
April 25th 2025When it comes to treating multiple myeloma (MM), Ajai Chari, MD, argued that more is not always better. More intense treatment regimens, or those with more drugs, don't necessarily guarantee better outcomes.
Read More
What's at Stake as Oral Arguments Are Presented in the Braidwood Case? Q&A With Richard Hughes IV
April 21st 2025Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPH, spoke about the upcoming oral arguments to be presented to the Supreme Court regarding the Braidwood case, which would determine how preventive services are guaranteed insurance coverage.
Read More