Loading
Set the price of a new cancer drug provisionally, then adjust it up or down after three years depending on how well patients actually did.
Prices are set at approval on trial data and rarely revisited. Outcome-based agreements exist but are bespoke and opaque. The proposal is a standard pricing rule: initial price tied to trial evidence, mandatory structured outcome capture, and a scheduled reassessment at three years using pre-specified real-world survival and toxicity metrics, with published adjustment formulae. Italy's AIFA registries and Germany's AMNOG reassessments are partial precedents.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Shares Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval, Real-world evidence, Weak real-world evidence and registries.
Every source this page cites, grouped by who published it. Grouping is read from the web address, not assigned by hand.
A source that has moved or gone is reported by the weekly link check. /audit/