Drug pricing and impact investing

President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda has reignited the debate about drug pricing. Arguments generally fall into two camps. On the one hand is concern about the increasing burden of health care costs. On the other hand, are arguments that drug prices are needed to support innovation and recoup the high cost of failures.

For impact investors, this is an important issue. In a previous article we talked about how it is possible to reconcile pricing power and impact across a range of themes.¹ However, we called out pharmaceutical companies as an example where exploitation of that power can reduce impact. That occurs when the positive benefit of the treatment comes at an unjustifiable cost, that in turn leads to limited access and unsustainable burdens on vulnerable individuals and their families.

More recently we have looked at several pharmaceutical companies and tried to answer the question: what cost is justified?

Outlining the problem

Inevitably, the issue is not straightforward. The common perception of ’evil pharma’ or governments attacking innovation are unhelpful and oversimplify a complex challenge.

There is clearly significant public interest in supporting innovation that leads to new drugs. Patent protection is needed to enable innovative firms to make the investments needed to develop these new drugs. However, there is a difficult balance to strike. Patents can encourage investment, but if the protection is too generous, the incentive to invest further is reduced.²

In addition, patent incentives are currently skewed towards incremental improvements which carry lower risks than truly innovative drugs where there is a greater chance of failure.³ This problem is compounded by a lack of transparency in pricing, particularly in the US system. There is also a lack of information about costs.⁴

US-specific issues

Potentially the biggest issue in the US is the absence of value-based pricing. Many OECD countries require companies to submit a cost-benefit analysis and will only pay up to a maximum level. This is usually defined with reference to the number of years of added life and takes into account quality of life.⁵ The US has no such requirement.

Bargaining power is also important. In many countries one government body negotiates drug prices. In the UK the National Institute for Health and Care Excellent (NICE) plays this role. In the US, government bodies like Medicare are explicitly prohibited from participation in negotiations. These are carried out by individual commercial insurers which dilutes their bargaining power.

Finally, there are major information asymmetries. Often neither doctors nor patients have accurate pricing information. This is partly due to a complex network of intermediaries. Rebates and reimbursements also mean the published list price is often very different to the price actually paid.

The result is that US drug prices are substantially higher than in other developed countries.⁶ The US pharma industry argue that the US is subsidising drug development for those countries and therefore the premium is warranted. Evidence suggests that claim may be inflated.⁷

From system-level to company analysis

The easy answer to this problem is to punt it to government and say that these are policy challenges best addressed by governments. But this approach ignores the risks that the current cost of US healthcare creates for the drug therapy companies. It also ignores the extent to which management teams can mitigate this risk for their businesses.⁸

Instead, our approach is to analyse drug pricing systematically. This leads to a more holistic view of impact and a better understanding of risk. The first step is analysing the positive impact, taking into account the health need being addressed and the level of innovation.

There are then three important aspects of pricing to consider: company policy, internal processes and performance. Policies tell you more about governance structures and transparency. Internal processes provide an insight into whether the company takes a value-based approach that considers costs and benefits, or whether it is simply trying to maximise profit. Performance then looks at the outcome: how has the company behaved in practice? For example, is there a history of aggressive price increases?

The lack of transparency in the industry means this can be difficult on a drug-by-drug basis. However, there are some useful external sources. In the UK any approved drug will have published evidence demonstrating an assessment of the health outcomes against the cost.⁹ In the US, there is a body called ICER that does similar work, although on a narrower range of drugs.¹⁰

Reaching a conclusion on whether a given drug price is “justifiable” is fraught with challenges. The price is part of the story, but the key is understanding the value. Overall, we think a more systematic approach that builds on evidence of value with analysis of policies, processes and performance provides a much clearer picture of impact and risk and ultimately likely returns as well.

¹WHEB (2017), Sharing the wealth: pricing power and impact – WHEB (whebgroup.com)

² BMJ (2020), https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.l4627

³ Blood Cancer Journal (2020), “The high cost of prescription drugs: causes and solutions” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41408-020-0338-x

⁴ World Economic Forum (2019), Why transparency in drug pricing is more complicated than it seems (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/transparency-drug-pricing/)

⁵ PubMed (2017), The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what it means, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18767894/#:~:text=The%20National%20Institute%20for%20Health,sterling%20for%20over20years

⁶ Harvard School of Public Health (2019), The need to treat the ailing US Pharmaceutical Pricing System, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/united-states-pharmaceutical-pricing/

[7] Health Affairs (2017), R&D costs for pharmaceutical companies do not explain elevated US drug prices, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20170307.059036/full/

[8] As one of the largest sources of lobbying spending, this argument also ignores the role that the drug industry plays in shaping the regulatory framework.

[9] NICE (2012): The guidelines manual: Assessing cost effectiveness, https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/assessing-cost-effectiveness

[10] ICER (2022), Cost-effectiveness, the QALY, and the evLYG, https://icer.org/our-approach/methods-process/cost-effectiveness-the-qaly-and-the-evlyg/

Important Notices:
Risks include: the price of shares (“Shares”) in FP WHEB Sustainability Fund (“Fund”) may increase or decrease and you may not get back the amount originally invested, for reasons including adverse market and foreign exchange rate movements. Past performance is not a guide to future returns. The Fund invests in equities and is exposed to price fluctuations in the equity markets, and focuses on investments in mid-sized companies in certain sectors so its performance may not correlate closely with the MSCI World Index (the Fund’s benchmark). For full risks, please see fund prospectus on www.whebgroup.com.
General: This blog, its contents and any related communication (altogether, the “Blog”) is issued by WHEB Asset Management LLP (“WHEB Asset Management”). It is intended for information purposes only and does not constitute or form part of any offer or invitation to buy or sell any security including any shares in the FP WHEB Sustainability Fund, including in the United States. It should not be relied upon to make an investment decision in relation to Shares in the FP WHEB Sustainability Fund or otherwise; any such investment decision should be made only on the basis of the Fund scheme documents and appropriate professional advice. This Blog does not constitute advice of any kind, investment research or a research recommendation, is in summary form and is subject to change without notice. The performance shown does not take account of any commissions and costs charged when subscribing to and redeeming shares. WHEB Asset Management has exercised reasonable care in preparing this Blog including using reliable sources, however, makes no representation or warranty relating to its accuracy, reliability or completeness or whether any future event may or may not occur. This Blog is only made available to recipients who may lawfully receive it in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and rules and binding guidance of regulators. WHEB Asset Management LLP is registered in England and Wales with number OC 341489 and has its registered office at 7 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0PE. WHEB Asset Management LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority with Firm Reference Number 496413. FundRock Partners Limited (formerly Fund Partners Limited) is the Authorised Corporate Director of the Fund and is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority with Firm Reference Number 469278 and has its registered office at 8-9 Lovat Lane, London EC3R 8DW. The state of the origin of the Fund is England and Wales. The Representative in Switzerland is ACOLIN Fund Services AG, Affolternstrasse 56, CH-8050 Zurich, whilst the Paying Agent is Bank Vontobel Ltd, Gotthardstrasse 43, CH-8022 Zurich. The relevant documents such as the prospectus, the key investor information document (KIIDs), the Articles of Association as well as the annual and semi-annual reports may be obtained free of charge from the representative in Switzerland.
The MSCI information may only be used for your internal use, may not be reproduced or re-dissseminated in any form and may not be used as a basis for or a component of any financial instruments or products or indices. None of the MSCI information is intended to constitute investment advice or a recommendation to make (or refrain from making) any kind of investment decision and may not be relied on as such. Historical data and analysis should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of any future performance analysis, forecast or prediction. The MSCI information is provided on an “as is” basis and the user of this information assumes the entire risk of any use made of this information. MSCI, each of its affiliates and each other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating any MSCI information (collectively, the “MSCI Parties”) expressly disclaims all warranties (including, without limitation, any warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, non-infringement, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose) with respect to this information. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall any MSCI Party have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive, consequential (including, without limitation, lost profits) or any other damages (www.msci.com)