The U.S. has the tools to end the HIV epidemic, but progress has stagnated. A major gap in U.S. efforts to address HIV is the under-utilization of medications that can virtually eliminate acquisition of the virus, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). This document proposes a financing and delivery system to unlock broad access to PrEP for those most vulnerable to HIV acquisition and bring an end to the HIV epidemic.

This special edition of JLME centers on a novel proposal for a national PrEP access program with the potential to break through a failed status quo.

Prior to the recent introduction of generic TDF/FTC in the U.S., access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV was greatly limited due to the downstream effects of the high cost of the medication. This article argues that despite drug copay cards and patient assistance programs, the promise of drastically reduced HIV diagnoses has never been fully realized, and more policy reforms on drug pricing are needed to make ending the HIV epidemic a reality.

Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is protective against HIV. Low utilization rates amongst HIV vulnerable populations are due in part to the high cost of PrEP. Generic PrEP offers the potential to improve health at significantly reduced costs. In this study, we examine early utilization patterns and prices for generic PrEP. We discuss the opportunities and challenges for generic PrEP to improve health among HIV vulnerable populations.

A substantial portion of biomedical R&D is publicly funded. But resulting medicines are typically covered by patents held by private firms, and priced without regard to the public’s investment. The Bayh-Dole Act provides a possible remedy, but its scope is limited.

Objectives: Differential pricing, based on countries’ purchasing power, is recommended by the World Health Organization to secure affordable medicines. However, in developing countries innovative drugs often have similar or even higher prices than in high-income countries. We evaluated the potential implications of trastuzumab global pricing policies in terms of cost-effectiveness (CE), coverage, and accessibility for patients with breast cancer in Latin America (LA).

Methods: A Markov model was designed to estimate life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs from a healthcare perspective. To better fit local cancer prognosis, a base case scenario using transition probabilities from clinical trials was complemented with two alternative scenarios with transition probabilities adjusted to reflect breast cancer epidemiology in each country.

Results: Incremental discounted benefits ranged from 0.87 to 1.00 LY and 0.51 to 0.60 QALY and incremental CE ratios from USD 42,104 to USD 110,283 per QALY (2012 U.S. dollars), equivalent to 3.6 gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) per QALY in Uruguay and to 35.5 GDPPC in Bolivia. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 0 percent probability that trastuzumab is CE if the willingness-to-pay threshold is one GDPPC per QALY, and remained so at three GDPPC threshold except for Chile and Uruguay (4.3 percent and 26.6 percent, respectively). Trastuzumab price would need to decrease between 69.6 percent to 94.9 percent to became CE in LA.

Conclusions: Although CE in other settings, trastuzumab was not CE in LA. The use of health technology assessment to prioritize resource allocation and support price negotiations is critical to making innovative drugs available and affordable in developing countries.

Background: Using multiples of India's per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as the threshold for economic value as suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO), decision analysis modeling was used to estimate a more affordable monthly cost in India for a hypothetical new cancer drug that provides a 3-month survival benefit to Indian patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods: A decision model was developed to simulate progression-free and overall survival in mCRC patients receiving chemotherapy with and without the new drug. Costs for chemotherapy and side-effects management were obtained from both public and private hospitals in India. Utility estimates measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were determined by interviewing twenty-four oncology nurses using the Time Trade-Off technique. The monthly cost of the new drug was then estimated using a target threshold of US$9,300 per QALY gained, which is three times the Indian per capita GDP.

Results: The base-case analysis suggested that a price of US$98.00 per dose would be considered cost-effective from the Indian public healthcare perspective. If the drug were able to improve patient quality of life above the standard of care or survival from 3 to 6 months, the price per dose could increase to US$170 and US$253 and offer the same value.

Conclusions: The use of the WHO criteria for estimating the cost of a new drug based on economic value for a developing country like India is feasible and can be used to estimate a more affordable cost based on societal value thresholds.