[ad_1]
CLEMSON, South Carolina – According to a study published January 22, 2019 in the UK, the Trump administration's proposal to require pharmaceutical companies to publish the price of drugs in television commercials JAMA Internal Medicine.
The research found that consumer demand for high-priced drugs was decreasing, unless drug ads included wording explaining that the drug would be inexpensive or free due to insurance coverage. or other discounts.
"In a world where coupon programs exist, consumers will likely not be influenced by price disclosure," said Jace Garrett, badistant professor of accounting at the College of Business at Clemson University and senior author of the program. study.
Coupon programs are a common marketing practice aimed at increasing market share. Although they reduce consumer spending, they do not decrease the overall cost of the drug. The costs are pbaded on to the insurance companies and ultimately are pbaded on to consumers through other channels.
Therefore, said Garrett, it is unlikely that the information provided on prices create the necessary competition to bring down prices. Pharmaceutical companies will continue to earn money and the status quo will remain the same. "
"The price disclosure will work?" The answer is yes: price disclosure works, in the absence of anything else, "said co-author Bill Tayler, a professor of accounting at the University of Toronto. Brigham Young University. "But in a world where pharmaceutical companies will behave logically, they will surely use a modifier that would negate all the benefits of this legislation."
For the study, Garrett, Tayler and researchers at Johns Hopkins University showed 580 participants one of five ads for a fictitious drug for diabetes, Mayzerium. (The study participants were not patients, they were told to badume they had recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.) The announcement in the control condition did not mention the price of the drug. while the other four revealed a low cost ($ 50) or a high price ($ 15,500 per month). In two "modified" advertisements, wording stating that eligible patients could get the drug for only $ 0 per month was available, due to insurance coverage or coupon availability.
For advertising on high-priced drugs, price disclosure significantly reduced the likelihood of participants questioning their doctor about the drug, questioning their drug insurance provider, researching the drug online or taking medication. medication. Participants who saw ads with language changes were still interested in drugs.
"Price disclosure in drug ads only works in the" tell price, only price, just price "scenario," said co-author, Ge Bai, badociate professor of accounting at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School.
For the Trump proposal to be effective, the administration must take action regarding the use by pharmaceutical companies of copay programs.
"If we really want to lower the price of drugs, consumers must vote with their wallets, and these are the consumers most likely to do so when they feel the high cost of the drug prices," he said. Garrett.
Tayler agrees: "Legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to offer equivalent discounts to all payers would do the trick.If the drug is reduced by 90% for the patient, also reduce it by 90% for its insurer, which would prevent pharmaceutical companies from playing. " system through documents distributed to consumers while forcing insurers to bear the cost of overpriced drugs. "
The Trump administration is not the first to fight soaring prices of pharmaceuticals; Previous administrations have done their best to solve this problem, as do other administrations in the medical and health sectors. It's still unclear what Trump's proposal on health and social services will look like, and Big Pharma is already backing away – and is showing signs of doing exactly what researchers say in this article from JAMA Internal Medicine.
A recent editorial in USA Today by the president of pharmaceutical research and US manufacturers said the proposal would confuse patients and could deter them from seeking care. "Current prices are not a good indicator of what patients will pay because their insurers determine what they pay out of pocket," Stephen J. Ubl wrote.
"The suggested policy is unlikely to hurt, but it should not help much to control the prices of pharmaceuticals either," said Tayler. "This is not the most effective way and it could be very expensive in terms of legal prosecution.Why engage this fight if it does not work?"
The research was meant to inform policy makers, but there is also a message for consumers, Garrett said.
"For all, we want price transparency, and if our own decisions are always driven by our financial interests, having price information may not make a difference," said Garret.
"I get the drug for zero, but who pays the total cost?"
###
Todd Hollingshead of BYU News contributed to this story.
Warning: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of the news releases published on EurekAlert! contributing institutions or for the use of any information via the EurekAlert system.
Source link
