The impact of two pharmaceutical risk-sharing agreements on pricing, promotion, and net health benefits.

Objective: Health insurers are increasingly making use of risk-sharing agreements with drug manufacturers to manage uncertainties regarding the costs and effectiveness of new drugs. Several risk-sharing models exist including those based on sales volume, achievement of clinical thresholds, and achievement of cost-effectiveness thresholds. The objective of this article is to compare two risk-sharing arrangements and to investigate conditions under which each is preferable from the perspective of the payer and the manufacturer.

Methods: We develop two two-period models to compare two risk-sharing arrangements between a payer and a drug manufacturer in which there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of the new drug. In the first risk-sharing agreement, the drug is listed on a formulary in the first period but delisted in the second period if the net monetary benefit in the first period is negative. In the second risk-sharing agreement, the manufacturer pays a rebate in each period if the net monetary benefit in that period is negative.

Results: We show that the relative performance of the two arrangements depends on several factors and that neither arrangement is always preferred. Additionally, we are able to identify situations in which a payer and a manufacturer would prefer the same plan and other situations in which the two parties would disagree on which plan was most desirable.

Conclusions: Because neither risk-sharing arrangement is always preferred, payers and manufacturers must carefully consider the characteristics of their individual situation when entering into such contracts.