01/10/2017

Does Disneyland Provide A Guide To The Future Of Personalized Medicine?

Tomas Philipson, Forbes.com

Disneyland and other amusement parks often charge a high entrance price at the gate but low prices (or nothing at all) for the rides inside. In healthcare, personalized medicines often have the same two-part pricing: companion diagnostic tests are the gate, and  drug therapies are the rides. Unlike at Disneyland, however, ownership of the gate and rides is often separated and pricing for personalized medicines tends to be reversed, with low costs for diagnostic tests with higher priced drugs. Pricing personalized medicines more like amusement parks—with joint ownership of tests and drugs and higher diagnostic prices with lower drug prices—could enhance innovation in personalized medicine, a space that has lagged relative to past forecasts  on major advances for patients. Stimulating more rapid growth of such new technologies is not just a matter of science, but also economics. 

Personalized medicine has the potential to take the trial and error out of treatment. People are different, and they respond to medicines in different ways. By leveraging our increasingly sophisticated knowledge of the effects of patient-specific factors on treatment responses, treatments can be targeted to the patients most likely to benefit, or the least likely to experience dangerous side effects. For example, personalized medicine can use predictive tests or companion diagnostics to stratify patient populations into likely responders or non-responders, or can even target medicines to individual patients’ specific genes.

As a result, personalized medicines promise greater value to patients and society by directing drugs to the individuals most likely to benefit from them. This is particularly true in contexts where trial and error in treatment can be very harmful, due to severe side effects or the harm imposed by being on the wrong treatment. It is perhaps no surprise that personalized medicine has emerged mainly in cancer care, where knowing which treatment is right before starting treatment can be a matter of life and death.

The development of personalized medicines, however, has been slower than predicted 5 or 10 years ago. Much of the slower than predicted  growth in personalized medicine is due to scientific barriers. However, I think equally important barriers are economic ones. In particular, innovators have a hard time capturing the value of personalized medicines due to current pricing practices that involve cheap diagnostics coupled with expensive drugs.

Disneyland can help illustrate the problem with this type of pricing. Amusement parks like Disneyland have pricing at two stages, similar to personalized medicines: at the gate, the entry fee is the analog to the price of diagnostic testing; and the price of rides inside the park is the price of drugs after testing into therapy. Disneyland could let you walk in the gate for free and pay a hefty price whenever you take a ride. But they don’t. They charge you a large entry fee at the gate, often hundreds of dollars, and nothing for the rides. The reason is that this allows them to better capture the full value of all the fun you have enjoying the cheap rides, without having people being discouraged from taking marked-up rides once inside the park. The late Chicago economist Walter Oi was a pioneer in analyzing the value of such pricing strategies.

Pricing in personalized medicine is generally the opposite of the type of pricing used at Disneyland. In fact, the lab tests that make up companion diagnostics are often priced close to their costs. This distorted pricing is in part due to public (Medicare and Medicaid) reimbursement rates for lab tests, which influence prices for the entire market. This cost-based pricing of lab tests is in contrast to the drugs used once a patient has tested into therapy, which often cost tens of thousands of dollars—well above the marginal cost of production.

The cost-based pricing of diagnostics is a disaster for innovation in personalized medicine, for the same reason allowing generics in at the launch of a new drug would be for drug innovation. It prevents the new part of what personalized medicine offers, the diagnostic, from being priced based on the value it generates to patients and payers. When prices are disconnected from value, it sets the wrong signals to innovators to bring that value to the market.

Read full article



You May Also Like:

American Pravda: 'Project Veritas' Catches CNN Producer Admitting Russia Story Is 'Mostly Bullshit,' 'About Ratings' [Watch] Tim Hains, RealClearPolitics

SCOTUS Reinstates Substantially All Of Trump Travel Order William A. Jacobson, Legal Insurrection

No, Obamacare Repeal Will Not Kill Tens Of Thousands Max Bloom, National Review

The War On Work—And How To End It Edward L. Glaeser, City Journal

Donald Trump Is Not Under An FBI Investigation. Bernie Sanders Is. Erick Erickson, The Resurgent

Study: Seattle's $13 Minimum Wage Led To Drop Of $1,500 In Income For Low-Wage Earners [Watch] Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire

The Numbers Don't Lie, Mueller Is Hunting [Watch] Newt Gingrich, Washington Examiner

Refugees And Terrorism: A Massive Vulnerability In Our Immigration System Kris W. Kobach, Breitbart News

EXACTLY WHAT SHE DESERVES: Professor Fired For Saying Otto Warmbier ‘Got Exactly What He Deserved’ Eric Owens, Daily Caller

Pelosi Appears Irritated After CBS Plays Montage Of Democrats Calling For Her Ouster: ‘They Had Their Time On TV’ [Watch] David Rutz, Washington Free Beacon

Student Who Registered Dead People For Democrats Headed To Prison Rick Moran, American Thinker

Progressive/Libertarian: The Alliance That Isn’t Bryan Caplan, Library of Economics and Liberty

Very Fake News Scandal Consumes CNN As Jeff Zucker, Network Flack Refuse To Comment On Russia Retraction To Own Network Matthew Boyle, Breitbart News

Disgrace: Almost 100 Veterans Died Waiting For Health Care At Los Angeles VA Hospital [Watch] Matt Vespa, Townhall

Why Trump Is Earning Latino Support Steve Cortes, RealClearPolitics

Black Trump Supporter Goes Nuclear On Maxine Waters ‘You Have Destroyed The Black Community With Illegal Immigration!’ [Watch] Cristina Laila, Gateway Pundit

Thank Frackers On Independence Day For Cheaper Gas Prices Andrew Moran, Economic Collapse News

Dershowitz: Ginsburg Should Recuse Herself From ‘Any Case Involving’ Trump [Watch] Kathryn Blackhurst, LifeZette

Tocqueville’s Fear With Democracy: Soft Despotism Learn Liberty

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Search

Bookshelf

FreeMarket Central

Some titles recent, all recommended -

Special Video Feature

FreeMarket Central

Voices From The 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference

In Search Of History

Cambodia's Deadly Experiment

In the 1950s, students started gathering in Paris. They were reading Karl Marx. They were forming book clubs. They were trying to come up with a better version of society. One that moved away from the division of labor. One that moved away from the capitalism in the big cities that they so despised. ... One of those students would change his name to Pol Pot. He and his colleagues formed a new political party, a takeover in Cambodia. They called themsevles the Khmer Rouge. ... Under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, one out of four people in that country died in less than four years. 

-- Matt Kibbe,

Shadow Stats Snapshot


FreeMarket Central

ShadowStats alternate economic indicators are based on the methodology of noted economist John Williams, specialist in government economic reporting.

  • Unemployment:
    FreeMarket Central BLS: 4.3%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 22.0%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central May Year-to-Year: 1.87% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 9.6%

*[cpi-u is the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate for all urban consumers]