{"id":38677,"date":"2026-06-03T10:01:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T14:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=38677"},"modified":"2026-05-03T20:44:54","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T00:44:54","slug":"old-drugs-new-prices-how-pharma-justifies-premium-pricing-for-repurposed-medicines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/old-drugs-new-prices-how-pharma-justifies-premium-pricing-for-repurposed-medicines\/","title":{"rendered":"Old Drugs, New Prices: How Pharma Justifies Premium Pricing for Repurposed Medicines"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Colchicine cost nine cents a pill for more than two centuries. Then, in 2009, a company ran a 185-patient trial and charged five dollars. The FDA called it progress. Physicians called it a scandal. Payers called it inevitable. All three were right \u2014 which tells you something important about how value-based pricing actually works for repurposed drugs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Argument That Won’t Die<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Every few years, a decades-old drug gets a new label, a new clinical trial, and a new price \u2014 often one hundred times higher than what patients paid before. The company’s justification is always the same: we’re not pricing the molecule, we’re pricing the value it delivers in this new indication. You’re not buying colchicine, the logic goes; you’re buying protection against heart attacks. You’re not buying sildenafil; you’re buying survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the core claim of value-based pricing applied to drug repurposing, and it is simultaneously one of the most intellectually coherent frameworks in pharmaceutical economics and one of the most abused arguments in modern medicine. It is coherent because therapeutic value does not derive from input costs \u2014 a drug that cures cancer is worth more than a drug that treats a cold, regardless of how much each cost to develop. It is abused because the same framework that correctly prices a genuinely transformative repurposed therapy also, in the wrong hands, wraps routine formulation changes or minor clinical work in the language of breakthrough medicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For executives at payers, hospital systems, pharmacy benefit managers, or specialty pharma firms, the task is not to simply accept or reject value-based pricing for repurposed drugs as a concept. The task is to understand when the argument holds, when it doesn’t, and how to tell the difference before you’re sitting across a negotiating table from someone who knows the patent landscape better than you do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is that guide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Repurposing Actually Means \u2014 and What It Costs<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Economic Case for Repurposing<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The pharmaceutical industry’s standard new drug development pathway is brutally expensive. Bringing a new chemical entity from initial discovery through phase III trials and FDA approval costs an estimated $2.6 billion when you account for the cost of capital and the enormous failure rate along the way. [1] That figure is contested \u2014 critics argue it includes excessive capitalized costs and R&D for drugs that fail \u2014 but even the most skeptical analysts place the all-in cost of a novel drug above $1 billion for most therapeutic areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drug repurposing operates in a different economic universe. When a company identifies a new use for an approved drug, it starts with a molecule that has already cleared preclinical toxicology, established pharmacokinetic data, and \u2014 crucially \u2014 a known human safety profile. The development timeline collapses from an average of 13 years for a new molecular entity to somewhere between 3 and 7 years for a repurposed drug. The cost falls proportionally: estimates from the drug repositioning literature put average development costs for a repurposed candidate at around $300 million, though some programs cost substantially less. [2] In cases where the repurposing is largely regulatory \u2014 obtaining a new indication for a drug already being used off-label \u2014 the cost can be far lower still.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers at DrugPatentWatch, which tracks the global pharmaceutical patent landscape, have noted that repurposed products have become a major contributor to the FDA’s approval pipeline. Various analyses indicate that 30% to 40% of all new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA are repurposed products. [3] That number alone refutes any notion that repurposing is a minor or niche strategy; it is central to how the modern pharmaceutical industry produces approved medicines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The economic advantages are real and they matter: lower development costs mean lower risk, faster timelines, and a higher probability of getting a treatment to patients who need it. But those same advantages create the core pricing tension. If a company spent $300 million rather than $2.6 billion bringing a drug to market, does it deserve the same pricing latitude? Industry says yes \u2014 because value flows from outcomes, not inputs. Critics say no \u2014 because cost recovery and innovation incentives are the moral foundation of patent-protected pricing, and a company that did less R&D deserves a smaller reward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both positions contain truth. The resolution requires a more granular analysis than either side typically offers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Four Types of Repurposing<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Not all repurposing is equivalent, and pricing debates often founder because participants conflate very different clinical and regulatory situations. To analyze pricing accurately, you need to distinguish among four distinct repurposing scenarios:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first is genuine indication extension: a drug approved for one disease is rigorously tested in clinical trials and shown to work for a different disease. The new indication requires substantial clinical work, new safety characterizations, and often modified dosing or formulation. Colchicine’s repurposing as a cardiovascular drug falls into this category. The evidence base was developed through large-scale randomized trials \u2014 the LoDoCo2 trial enrolled 5,522 patients and followed them for a median of 29 months. [4] The FDA approved Lodoco in June 2023 as the first anti-inflammatory drug for established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. [17] This type of repurposing most strongly supports value-based pricing arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second is formulation-based repurposing: the active molecule is unchanged, but the formulation, delivery mechanism, or dosage is modified to create a new product with distinct clinical properties. Sildenafil’s transformation from Viagra to Revatio illustrates this: the same molecule, reformulated at a different dose and dose schedule, received FDA approval for pulmonary arterial hypertension in 2005. [45] The clinical work was real and the indication is genuinely different, but the compound was already deeply understood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third is regulatory arbitrage repurposing: a company takes advantage of FDA programs \u2014 the Unapproved Drugs Initiative, orphan drug designations, or 505(b)(2) pathways \u2014 to obtain exclusivity over a molecule that has effectively been in clinical use for decades, without conducting trials of meaningful size or scientific novelty. The original Colcrys approval for colchicine in 2009 sits at this end of the spectrum. URL Pharma ran a 185-patient trial to establish dosing for acute gout. [13] That trial provided the FDA with useful safety data about drug interactions, but it did not transform the clinical understanding of gout treatment. The subsequent 50-fold price increase was not supported by a proportional increase in demonstrated clinical value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fourth is compound repositioning under academic or nonprofit pressure: a repurposed use is identified through academic research, often funded by public grants, and subsequently licensed or acquired by a commercial entity for development. In these cases, the company’s role in value creation is smaller still \u2014 it provided regulatory and commercial infrastructure, but the core scientific discovery was publicly funded. The pricing implications are ethically distinct from company-initiated repurposing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pricing analysts and payer negotiators who apply a single “value-based pricing” framework to all four scenarios will consistently overpay in categories three and four, and may underfund innovation in category one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Value-Based Pricing Framework: What It Says and What It Doesn’t<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Origin and Logic<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Value-based pricing in pharmaceuticals means setting a drug’s price in reference to the clinical and economic benefits it delivers to patients, rather than in reference to the manufacturer’s development costs. The conceptual foundation is straightforward: in competitive markets, prices reflect willingness to pay, which is driven by utility. A treatment that prevents a heart attack is worth more than a treatment that relieves a headache, even if their R&D costs were identical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The practical implementation typically relies on health technology assessment bodies that quantify clinical benefit in standardized units. The most common is the quality-adjusted life year, or QALY \u2014 a measure that combines survival gains with quality-of-life improvements into a single number. A drug that adds one year of perfect health generates one QALY. Treatments are then assessed for their incremental cost per QALY gained relative to the next-best alternative. In the United States, ICER \u2014 the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review \u2014 is the most influential independent body conducting these assessments. ICER calculates value-based price benchmarks using $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY as threshold values, meaning a treatment priced to generate one QALY per $150,000 of cost sits at ICER’s upper acceptable ceiling. [55]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results, when applied to the actual drug market, are sobering for pricing defenders. A 2021 analysis in Value in Health comparing ICER’s value-based price benchmarks to actual net prices for newly launched drugs found that the net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100,000 per QALY value-based price, and 71% exceeded the $150,000 per QALY threshold. [51] The median price reduction needed to align with the $150,000 threshold was 36%. That analysis covered drugs broadly \u2014 but repurposed drugs present an additional complication that standard ICER models do not fully resolve: the counterfactual price of the generic compound.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Generic Reference Problem<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When a novel drug is assessed for cost-effectiveness, the comparator is usually another therapy \u2014 a different drug class, watchful waiting, or standard of care without the new drug. But repurposed drugs introduce a new comparator that standard value-based pricing models frequently fail to address honestly: the off-label or generic version of the same molecule, available at a fraction of the brand price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not a theoretical problem. When Agepha Pharma’s Lodoco received FDA approval in June 2023 for cardiovascular risk reduction, generic colchicine 0.5 mg tablets were available internationally for approximately $0.30 per pill. [10] The cardiovascular indication had already been endorsed by European and South American guidelines based on the same clinical trial data that supported the FDA approval. [20] A physician in Australia or Canada could prescribe generic colchicine off-label for cardiovascular protection. A physician in the United States, after June 2023, had access to Lodoco \u2014 the same active molecule, an FDA-approved indication, and a price that had not yet been disclosed but came with the announcement of a patient assistance program, a reliable signal that it would not be cheap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A strict value-based pricing argument would say: the value delivered by Lodoco is the reduction in heart attacks, strokes, and cardiovascular deaths \u2014 demonstrated by the LoDoCo2 trial at 31% reduction in cardiovascular events on top of statin therapy. [17] That value is real and substantial. A single prevented myocardial infarction saves tens of thousands of dollars in acute care costs. The QALY calculus could support a meaningful price premium above cheap generic colchicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here is where the argument frays: the clinical value being priced is not unique to Lodoco. The evidence base supporting the cardiovascular indication was generated in trials that used standard colchicine, not a proprietary formulation. The FDA approval creates legal certainty for US prescribers, regulatory clarity for insurers, and label-based guidance for dose selection. These are real services with real value. But they are not $5-per-pill services in a market where the same molecule costs $0.30 abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This tension between nominal value-based pricing and the reality of a cheap generic equivalent is the defining problem of repurposed drug economics. It recurs across every major case study in this space \u2014 and examining those cases in detail is the only way to understand how the argument plays out in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study One: Colchicine \u2014 The Drug That Defined the Debate<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A Three-Thousand-Year-Old Molecule Meets Modern Patent Law<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Colchicine is extracted from the autumn crocus plant. Egyptians used it medicinally 3,500 years ago. It has been a recognized gout treatment since antiquity. By the early 2000s, it was manufactured by more than a dozen companies in the United States and sold for less than ten cents per tablet. No one had ever successfully patented the molecule itself \u2014 it is a natural compound with an unambiguous prior art history that would defeat any composition-of-matter patent claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2006, the FDA launched its Unapproved Drugs Initiative, a program designed to push old, unapproved-but-marketed drugs through formal clinical trials to establish safety and efficacy under modern standards. The rationale was legitimate: some old drugs had known safety problems that had never been systematically characterized, and the drug interaction risks of colchicine at high doses were genuinely under-studied. URL Pharma saw an opportunity. It ran a 185-patient trial establishing a low-dose, short-course regimen for acute gout \u2014 a regimen that was, in the words of FDA Director Janet Woodcock, based on interpreting “the laws as written.” [13]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2009, the FDA approved colchicine as Colcrys, granting URL Pharma three years of market exclusivity. URL also received seven years of orphan drug exclusivity for the use of colchicine in familial Mediterranean fever, despite conducting no new trials in that population. [15] The FDA ordered generic colchicine pulled from the market. URL raised the price from $0.09 per tablet to $5.00 per tablet \u2014 a 55-fold increase \u2014 overnight. [13]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine rose 2,833% between 2008 and 2017. Researchers publishing in JAMA Internal Medicine calculated that 58% of that increase was attributable to price hikes alone \u2014 not to increased utilization or Medicaid expansion. [9] If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending on colchicine in 2017 would have totaled approximately $2.1 million. Actual spending was $32.2 million. [10]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeda Pharmaceuticals acquired URL Pharma for $800 million in 2012. A second branded colchicine, Mitigare, from Hikma Pharmaceuticals, received FDA approval in 2014. Takeda sued, obtained a temporary restraining order, and then lost in the Federal Circuit in January 2015. [7] The American College of Rheumatology filed an amicus brief in the Mitigare litigation, noting that nearly 30% of gout patients were taking “risky and potentially dangerous steps” to afford their medication, including skipping doses and purchasing from foreign sources. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The colchicine case was, in effect, the most instructive possible demonstration of regulatory arbitrage repurposing: a modest clinical effort, a favorable FDA program, market exclusivity over a molecule with thousands of years of prior use, and a price increase that no coherent value-based pricing framework could justify. The Department of Health and Human Services ended the Unapproved Drugs Initiative in late 2020, citing the cost inflation seen with colchicine and similar drugs as a major motivating factor. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Round Two: Lodoco and the Cardiovascular Opportunity<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The story of colchicine and value-based pricing did not end with Colcrys. It acquired a second, more interesting chapter with the cardiovascular repurposing of the same molecule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scientific idea was not new. Researchers had recognized colchicine’s anti-inflammatory properties as potentially relevant to cardiovascular disease pathogenesis for years. The inflammation hypothesis of atherosclerosis \u2014 the idea that arterial plaques are driven as much by inflammatory processes as by cholesterol accumulation \u2014 had gained major credibility following the CANTOS trial of canakinumab published in 2017, which demonstrated that a pure anti-inflammatory agent with no lipid-lowering effects reduced major adverse cardiovascular events. Colchicine, a cheap, well-characterized anti-inflammatory, was a natural candidate to test the same hypothesis at a fraction of the cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Australian LoDoCo2 trial enrolled 5,522 patients with stable coronary artery disease and randomized them to 0.5 mg colchicine daily versus placebo. [4] Results published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020 showed a 31% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. [17] The 2019 COLCOT trial, also randomized, had shown similar results in patients who had recently experienced a myocardial infarction. [20] By 2023, when the FDA approved Lodoco, the evidence base was robust by any standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agepha Pharma, a family-owned Slovakian company, had obtained the original patent on colchicine’s use in cardiovascular disease more than a decade earlier. [18] Its NDA was filed under the 505(b)(2) pathway, which allows applicants to rely on existing published clinical data \u2014 meaning Agepha did not bear the full cost of running LoDoCo2 itself. The FDA’s Priority Review designation acknowledged the unmet medical need. [24]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pricing announcement, when it came, was handled with notable caution. Managing director Antonia Riel-Kollmann told medical journalists that the pricing strategy would focus on access, and that a patient assistance program would be offered. [20] No list price was disclosed in the immediate post-approval period. Agepha’s reticence was understandable: it was pricing a molecule that costs pennies to manufacture, in an indication supported by trials using ordinary generic colchicine, at a time when US physicians and patients remembered Colcrys vividly. The company’s patient assistance program announcement was, if nothing else, an acknowledgment that the market context made straightforward value-based pricing arguments uncomfortable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s detailed patent profiles on both Colcrys and the colchicine cardiovascular space illustrate precisely why these situations are so complex: the molecule is unpatentable, the use patents are finite, and the regulatory exclusivities that create pricing power are time-limited protections granted by the FDA rather than traditional intellectual property derived from research investment. [38, 41] Understanding which specific patents cover Lodoco’s formulation and indication, and when those patents expire, is the only way for a payer to accurately project the competitive landscape \u2014 and it is the type of analysis that DrugPatentWatch is designed to support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study Two: Thalidomide, Thalomid, and Revlimid \u2014 The Full Repurposing Spectrum<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

From Pariah to Blockbuster<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Thalidomide is the most haunted molecule in pharmaceutical history. Prescribed in Europe as a sedative and anti-nausea drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s, it caused severe birth defects in thousands of children before being withdrawn. Frances Kelsey, the FDA reviewer who refused to approve it for the US market, became a hero. For two decades, thalidomide was essentially synonymous with pharmaceutical catastrophe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reversal began not in a pharmaceutical company but beside a hospital bed. Beth Wolmer, a lawyer whose husband Ira \u2014 a cardiologist \u2014 had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma, began researching potential treatments. She found published work on thalidomide’s antiangiogenic properties and connected that mechanism to myeloma’s dependence on new blood vessel formation. She pushed for a clinical trial. The initial results, published by Barlogie and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1999, showed responses in 34% of patients with refractory myeloma \u2014 a disease where very little else worked. [37]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Celgene had been supplying thalidomide under FDA-supervised compassionate use protocols, primarily for leprosy-related conditions. When the myeloma results landed, the company’s strategic position transformed overnight. Thalomid \u2014 Celgene’s branded thalidomide \u2014 became a legitimate cancer drug, with all the pricing latitude that designation implies. It sold initially at $7.50 per pill. [34]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happened next was a master class in pharmaceutical pricing strategy, and also a case study in how value-based pricing arguments can be weaponized independent of their validity. Celgene kept Thalomid prices low when the primary patient population was HIV\/AIDS patients \u2014 the CEO explicitly told investors the company did not want large protests. When the indication shifted to cancer patients, who were perceived as less organized and more dependent on the drug for survival, there was, in management’s own words, “plenty of room for very substantial increases.” [34]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The price of Thalomid rose repeatedly. Celgene then developed lenalidomide (Revlimid), a structural analog of thalidomide with improved efficacy and a less severe teratogenicity profile. Revlimid launched in 2006 at $6,195 for a 21-capsule monthly supply. [33] By 2017, Revlimid brought in $8.1 billion \u2014 63% of Celgene’s total revenue \u2014 and the per-capsule price had risen more than 26 times since the drug’s launch. [33] Bristol-Myers Squibb acquired Celgene in 2019 for $74 billion, a valuation built substantially on the Revlimid revenue stream and its patent estate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The intellectual property strategy supporting these price increases was extraordinary in its complexity. Celgene filed patents covering dosing regimens, combination therapies, patient risk management systems (required by the FDA’s REMS program for teratogenic drugs), and manufacturing processes. When generic manufacturers sought to enter the market after core composition patents expired, they faced a web of secondary patents that Celgene had systematically constructed to delay competition. Generic lenalidomide did not reach the US market at scale until 2022. [33]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Celgene’s defense \u2014 stated publicly and in regulatory filings \u2014 was that Thalomid and Revlimid were transformative therapies that had turned multiple myeloma from a rapidly fatal disease to a chronic condition with median survivals measured in years rather than months. That claim is true. The clinical value created was real and substantial. But the pricing of Revlimid had no meaningful relationship to its cost-effectiveness \u2014 it had a relationship to what Celgene believed the market would bear, modulated by the risk of political backlash. The Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board investigated Thalomid pricing, noting that the drug could be manufactured in Brazilian government laboratories for less than a dime per capsule while Canadian patients paid approximately $35. [36]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Celgene story illustrates a point that value-based pricing’s advocates prefer not to dwell on: the framework’s outputs depend entirely on how you define “value” and who does the measuring. Celgene’s internal value-based pricing exercise produced prices that bore no relationship to what ICER or NICE would have calculated using QALY-based cost-effectiveness models. The company was pricing on therapeutic value in the sense of “how much will desperate patients and their insurers pay,” not therapeutic value in the sense of “what does this drug deliver per dollar of healthcare resources.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Legitimate Value-Based Pricing Looked Like in the Same Disease<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Revlimid story has a useful counterpoint within the same disease area. All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) for acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is another repurposed drug \u2014 originally used in dermatology \u2014 that proved curative in a cancer that had previously been almost uniformly fatal. [6] The pricing of ATRA never reached Revlimid levels, partly because it remained available generically and partly because the academic and institutional origins of its cancer indication made aggressive pricing politically untenable. The clinical value is comparable: a disease once measured in months of survival became one of the most curable forms of leukemia. The pricing trajectory was completely different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This comparison does not prove that value-based pricing is inherently illegitimate for cancer drugs. It demonstrates that pricing outcomes in this space are primarily determined by competitive dynamics, patent strategy, and negotiating leverage \u2014 not by the clinical value delivered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study Three: Sildenafil \u2014 One Molecule, Two Completely Different Markets<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Accidental Repurposing<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Few drug discoveries are more famous for their accidentalness than sildenafil. Pfizer was developing the compound as a cardiovascular agent \u2014 specifically for angina, via its mechanism of inhibiting phosphodiesterase-5 and relaxing smooth muscle in blood vessels. Phase II trials for angina were disappointing. But the trial participants reported an unexpected side effect. Pfizer pivoted. Viagra launched in 1998 and became one of the highest-grossing drugs in pharmaceutical history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The repurposing story continued when Pfizer recognized that sildenafil’s vascular relaxation mechanism was relevant to a different, more serious disease: pulmonary arterial hypertension. PAH is a rare, progressive condition in which the blood vessels supplying the lungs constrict, forcing the right ventricle to work against increasing resistance until it fails. Before modern treatments, median survival after diagnosis was approximately 2.8 years. [45]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer filed a separate patent on sildenafil’s cardiovascular uses in 1992 \u2014 before the erectile dysfunction pivot \u2014 and that patent, covering what became Revatio, was distinct from the Viagra ED patent. [43] Revatio received FDA approval for PAH in 2005 based on the SUPER trial, which randomized 278 patients. [46] The clinical work was real and the indication was genuinely novel. PAH was, and remains, a disease with very limited treatment options and a high mortality burden. Sildenafil’s demonstrated efficacy in PAH was a meaningful clinical advance, even if the molecule was already commercially successful in a different indication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pricing of Revatio reflected the PAH market context rather than the erectile dysfunction market context. Brand-name Revatio costs approximately $850 per month for a 30-day supply. [44] Generic sildenafil for ED \u2014 same molecule, same dose range \u2014 costs a fraction of that. The price difference is not a function of manufacturing cost differences, because there aren’t any meaningful ones. It reflects the different competitive dynamics in two markets: a large, competitive market for ED medications (where the primary concern is adherence and convenience) versus a small, rare-disease market for PAH (where patients are sicker, alternatives are fewer, and payers have less negotiating leverage).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Evergreening Strategy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer’s management of the sildenafil patent portfolio has been analyzed extensively, including by DrugPatentWatch, which tracks the full intellectual property life cycle of major pharmaceutical compounds. The strategy illustrates how a repurposed drug’s commercial life can be extended through what the industry calls “lifecycle management” and critics call “evergreening”: systematic filing of secondary patents on dosing, formulation, combinations, and new indications to delay the competitive erosion that follows core patent expiration. [42]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Viagra ED patent expired in April 2020 in the United States. The Revatio PAH patent had expired in 2012. Generic sildenafil for both indications became broadly available in their respective timelines. The lesson for analysts is not that Pfizer behaved improperly \u2014 nothing in this history was illegal, and much of the secondary patent filing represented genuine incremental innovation. The lesson is that understanding a repurposed drug’s pricing trajectory requires understanding its complete patent map, not just its molecule and its indication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where resources like DrugPatentWatch provide a genuine analytical advantage for payers, generic manufacturers, and healthcare systems trying to model when competitive entry will occur and what it will do to prices. A hospital system that negotiated a long-term supply contract for Revatio in 2011, not knowing the patent would expire in 2012, made a costly error that detailed patent analysis could have prevented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Regulatory Infrastructure That Makes This Possible<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

FDA Pathways: 505(b)(2), Orphan Drug, and the Unapproved Drugs Initiative<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Value-based pricing for repurposed drugs does not exist in a vacuum. It operates within a specific set of FDA regulatory pathways that determine what intellectual property protections are available, how much clinical work is required to obtain them, and how long a manufacturer can maintain market exclusivity. Understanding these pathways is essential for anyone who needs to assess whether a given drug’s premium price has a durable foundation or is likely to face competitive erosion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 505(b)(2) pathway, named for the section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that governs it, allows an applicant to submit an NDA that relies partly on published literature or prior FDA findings \u2014 rather than requiring the applicant to independently generate all the data. Lodoco was approved through this pathway. [24] 505(b)(2) drugs can receive three years of market exclusivity for a new condition of use or a new clinical investigation. They can also qualify for additional exclusivity if they meet other criteria, such as being a new dosage form or a pediatric indication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Orphan Drug Act provides seven years of market exclusivity for drugs intended to treat rare diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States \u2014 or diseases where there is no reasonable expectation of recovering development costs without the exclusivity incentive. This program has been used effectively for genuine rare disease drug development, but it has also been employed for repurposed drugs in ways that generated significant controversy. URL Pharma’s receipt of seven-year orphan exclusivity for colchicine in familial Mediterranean fever \u2014 without conducting any new FMF trials \u2014 represents the program at its most questionable. [15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The now-terminated Unapproved Drugs Initiative was specifically designed to push old, marketed-but-unapproved drugs through formal FDA review. Its legacy is ambiguous: it did improve safety information on some old drugs and eliminated potentially dangerous formulations, but its primary measurable effect on colchicine was a 55-fold price increase with no corresponding improvement in clinical outcomes that justified the increase. The HHS ended the program in 2020. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patent Strategy: What Covers a Repurposed Drug<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When an old drug gets a new FDA approval for a new indication, the question of what intellectual property protects the product \u2014 and for how long \u2014 is critical. There are generally three layers of protection:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Composition-of-matter patents cover the molecule itself. For old drugs like colchicine or sildenafil in their generically available forms, these patents have typically long expired or were never granted because the compounds are naturally derived or have extensive prior art. A company repurposing an old drug cannot obtain composition-of-matter protection on the active ingredient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Method-of-use patents cover the new indication itself \u2014 the specific therapeutic application. These are the primary IP assets in repurposing. They can block generic manufacturers from marketing the drug for the new indication, but they cannot prevent physicians from prescribing generic versions of the same molecule off-label for the same purpose. A method-of-use patent on colchicine for cardiovascular disease prevention protects Lodoco against a generic colchicine product labeled for cardiovascular disease, but it does nothing to prevent a cardiologist from prescribing 0.5 mg generic colchicine daily for the same outcome-reducing purpose based on published clinical trial data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Formulation and process patents cover specific manufacturing methods, tablet formulations, extended-release technologies, or other technical aspects of the product. These can provide meaningful protection even after method-of-use patents expire, particularly if the specific formulation offers clinical advantages. Celgene’s extensive formulation and combination therapy patent portfolio for Revlimid delayed generic competition for years after the composition-of-matter patents on lenalidomide were in the public domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For payers evaluating repurposed drugs, this patent architecture has immediate practical implications. When a new repurposed drug enters the market at a premium price, the first question is not “is this drug worth the money?” The first question is “when does the protection expire and what will the drug cost then?” A drug priced at $15,000 per year that will face generic competition in three years presents a completely different coverage decision than one priced identically but protected for fifteen years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100,000 per QALY value-based price benchmark, with the median drug requiring a 36% price reduction to align with the $150,000 threshold. This was true even after accounting for rebates.”\u2014 Beall et al., Value in Health<\/em>, 2021 [51]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Legitimate Case for Premium Pricing: When Value-Based Arguments Actually Hold<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What Genuine Value Creation Looks Like<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Having spent considerable space on where value-based pricing arguments for repurposed drugs fail or are abused, it is important to be precise about where they are legitimate \u2014 because they are sometimes genuinely legitimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The clearest case for premium pricing of a repurposed drug occurs when all five of the following conditions are met: the new indication represents a disease with significant unmet need; the clinical evidence base is robust and was generated through adequately powered, properly randomized trials; the clinical benefit is meaningful by any reasonable measure (not just statistically significant relative to placebo); no equivalent alternative therapy is available at much lower cost; and the repurposing required substantial investment in clinical development, regulatory work, and ongoing pharmacovigilance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By this standard, Agepha Pharma’s Lodoco for cardiovascular disease comes closer to meeting the legitimacy threshold than Colcrys for gout. The cardiovascular indication represents a disease area with massive unmet need \u2014 atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death globally \u2014 and the evidence base for colchicine’s anti-inflammatory mechanism in this context is solid. The LoDoCo2 and COLCOT trials were properly powered and conducted. The 31% reduction in adverse cardiovascular events on top of standard statin therapy is a clinically meaningful outcome. The investment in running those trials, navigating the FDA process, and establishing the product’s commercial infrastructure was not trivial for a company of Agepha’s size. [17]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The complication \u2014 which neither Agepha nor its payer counterparties have fully resolved \u2014 is the off-label generic alternative. If a physician can prescribe 0.5 mg generic colchicine daily for $30 per month and achieve outcomes equivalent to Lodoco at whatever price Lodoco commands, the value-based premium collapses. The legal, regulatory, and practical reasons why that substitution may not occur perfectly in US clinical practice \u2014 physician liability, formulary restrictions, patient adherence differences \u2014 are the actual foundation of Lodoco’s pricing power, not a value argument in the traditional sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pharmacoeconomic Value Creation That Prices Often Ignore<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There is a category of value that repurposed drugs can create that standard QALY-based cost-effectiveness models undercount, and it deserves mention in any complete analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a repurposed drug prevents hospitalizations, avoids expensive downstream treatments, or reduces the need for specialist care, those downstream cost savings are part of the total economic value it creates. A colchicine-based cardiovascular prevention strategy that prevents a myocardial infarction saves not just a QALY \u2014 it saves the acute care costs of the MI itself, the cardiac rehabilitation costs, the secondary prevention medication intensification, and the long-term management of reduced cardiac function. Those savings can easily exceed $50,000 per prevented event. A drug priced at $500 per year that prevents events costing $60,000 each creates a cost-effectiveness ratio that is dramatically favorable, even before counting the quality-of-life improvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that in the US healthcare system, these savings do not flow back to the entity paying the drug cost. An insurer covering Lodoco pays for the pill; the hospital system collects the revenue when the MI is prevented by not occurring. This misalignment between who pays and who benefits is a structural problem of healthcare financing, not a value-based pricing problem. But it has practical consequences: payers applying value-based frameworks to repurposed cardiovascular drugs need to model the full downstream economics, not just the cost per QALY gained at the intervention level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Payer Perspective: How Coverage Decisions Actually Get Made<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What PBMs and Health Plans Actually Do<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The pharmacoeconomic theory of value-based pricing maps imperfectly onto the actual process by which pharmacy benefit managers, integrated delivery networks, and commercial health plans make formulary decisions about repurposed drugs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, formulary placement for a new branded repurposed drug typically begins with a therapeutic review committee assessing clinical evidence \u2014 essentially asking whether the drug works and for whom. That determination drives the formulary tier, which in turn drives the rebate negotiations with the manufacturer. Manufacturer rebates for formulary placement are the primary mechanism through which US payers extract discounts from list prices. A drug placed on tier one (preferred brand) receives favorable patient cost-sharing but the manufacturer pays a larger rebate. A drug placed on tier three or non-preferred typically faces higher patient cost-sharing that suppresses utilization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For repurposed drugs with generic alternatives at the same active ingredient, payers have an additional lever: requiring step therapy or prior authorization that mandates a trial of the cheaper alternative \u2014 whether brand-name generic or true generic \u2014 before authorizing coverage of the branded repurposed product. This is standard practice and it is pharmacoeconomically rational. A payer that covers Lodoco without requiring a trial of generic colchicine first is effectively financing the brand premium without evidence that the brand provides meaningful clinical benefit over the generic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The challenge for payer medical directors is distinguishing cases where step therapy through the generic is clinically appropriate from cases where the brand’s specific formulation, dose, or indication-specific evidence base provides genuine clinical value that the generic substitution undermines. No universal rule resolves this \u2014 it requires case-by-case analysis. But the default posture, given the consistent evidence that most repurposed drugs are priced above their value-based benchmarks, should be skepticism rather than deference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Inflation Reduction Act and Medicare Negotiation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 gave Medicare the authority to negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers for a defined set of drugs. The first ten drugs selected for negotiation in 2025-2026 included several agents with significant repurposing histories. The implications for repurposed drug pricing are significant but not yet fully visible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Medicare drug price negotiation operates under a “maximum fair price” framework that explicitly references clinical evidence and alternative treatments. The methodology does not use QALYs \u2014 the ADA Amendments Act of 1990 has been interpreted to restrict QALY-based value assessments in Medicare \u2014 but it does incorporate comparative effectiveness, unmet medical need, and market alternatives. [49] For repurposed drugs with generic alternatives, the negotiated price should theoretically reflect the premium value of the branded, indication-specific product over the generic \u2014 which, for many repurposed drugs, is modest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The early results from IRA negotiations suggest that the government is extracting substantial discounts from list prices, with negotiated prices often 60% to 80% below list for the first cohort. Whether that discount level reflects true value-based alignment or negotiating leverage is a question the full dataset of IRA negotiations, when it is complete, will help answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Innovation Incentive Problem: Does Expensive Repurposing Fund Future Research?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Industry’s Strongest Argument<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The most sophisticated version of the value-based pricing argument for repurposed drugs is not “we deserve this price because the drug is worth it.” It is “if repurposing is not commercially rewarding, companies will stop doing it, and patients in rare disease populations or neglected indication areas will be worse off.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a real concern. Drug repurposing for rare diseases is already chronically underfunded through nonprofit and academic channels. Investment in R&D for neglected diseases fell from a peak of $4.7 billion in 2018 to $3.7 billion in 2023. [2] For commercial repurposing to continue \u2014 for companies to run large-scale cardiovascular trials in populations where the existing standard of care already uses statins and where the incremental clinical bar is therefore high \u2014 there needs to be a credible commercial return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The counterargument is that the level of return currently associated with successful repurposed drugs like Revlimid far exceeds what is necessary to incentivize the clinical investment. Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $74 billion for Celgene, a price justified primarily by the Revlimid cash flow. The clinical trials that generated the myeloma evidence base cost a small fraction of that valuation. What the premium pricing of repurposed drugs primarily funds is not future R&D \u2014 it is investor returns and the cost of acquiring the commercial and regulatory infrastructure to monetize the discovery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This does not mean that incentive concerns should be dismissed. If the premium pricing of successful repurposed drugs were eliminated entirely \u2014 if Lodoco were required to price at generic colchicine levels \u2014 the commercial incentive to run the expensive LoDoCo2 trial would have been substantially reduced. The question for policy is not whether to price repurposed drugs at generic levels or at unlimited premium, but how to calibrate the premium to reward the clinical investment actually made, rather than the maximum the market will bear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What “Fair” Innovation Reward Might Look Like<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Several health economists have proposed frameworks for calibrating repurposed drug pricing to clinical investment rather than to market power. The common elements across these proposals are: transparency about actual R&D costs incurred for the new indication; regulatory exclusivity periods scaled to the size and rigor of the clinical program; and value-based price benchmarks that account for the generic counterfactual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under such a framework, a company that ran a 185-patient week-long trial (like Colcrys for gout) would receive a modest exclusivity period and modest pricing latitude. A company that ran a 5,500-patient multi-year trial (like LoDoCo2) would receive a longer exclusivity period and more substantial pricing latitude. The length of exclusivity and the degree of pricing freedom would be explicitly linked to the magnitude and quality of the clinical evidence contributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This framework does not exist in the United States today. The FDA grants exclusivity periods based on regulatory categories (505(b)(2) = 3 years, orphan = 7 years) rather than on clinical investment magnitude. The result is a system where the regulatory investment required for exclusivity is the same whether your clinical program costs $30 million or $300 million \u2014 creating strong incentives to spend as little on clinical development as possible while still obtaining the same legal protections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using Patent Intelligence to Navigate Repurposed Drug Decisions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Information Gap and How to Close It<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For payers, hospital systems, generic manufacturers, and investors evaluating repurposed drugs, the single most practical analytical step is obtaining comprehensive patent intelligence before making any coverage, contracting, or investment decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a new branded repurposed drug enters the market, several questions need answers: What specific patents cover this product and when do they expire? Are the method-of-use patents strong enough to prevent off-label generic prescribing for the same indication? Has any generic manufacturer filed an ANDA or NDA for the same compound in this indication? Is there ongoing patent litigation that might accelerate or delay generic entry? What is the FDA regulatory exclusivity timeline, separate from the patent timeline?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch maintains one of the most comprehensive databases of pharmaceutical patent information available, tracking both Orange Book-listed patents and patent litigation records across the industry. For professionals navigating repurposed drug decisions, tools like DrugPatentWatch’s patent profiles \u2014 which include compound-level analysis, Orange Book listings, litigation history, and exclusivity expiration dates \u2014 provide the foundation for modeling competitive timelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The practical applications vary by stakeholder. A pharmacy benefit manager reviewing a prior authorization request for a branded repurposed drug can use patent analysis to determine whether the premium brand will face generic competition within the patient’s expected treatment course \u2014 if so, deferring coverage of the brand in favor of the generic pending that competition may be the financially sound decision. A hospital formulary committee can use the same information to determine whether to negotiate a preferred rate from the branded manufacturer or to manage generic prescribing during the brand’s exclusivity window. An investor considering a generic pharmaceutical company can use the analysis to identify repurposed drug franchises where first-to-file ANDA opportunities create near-term revenue potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Litigation as a Signal<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Hatch-Waxman patent litigation \u2014 the legal battles between brand manufacturers and generic entrants over challenged patents \u2014 is a reliable leading indicator of competitive dynamics in repurposed drug markets. When a generic company files a Paragraph IV ANDA certification asserting that a brand’s patents are invalid or not infringed, the brand’s response (whether to sue, settle, or ignore) tells you something important about how confident the brand is in its patent position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The history of Colcrys is instructive. Takeda sued Hikma over Mitigare on the theory that Mitigare infringed specific formulation and dosing patents. Takeda lost in the Federal Circuit. That outcome suggested the colchicine patent position was weaker than Takeda’s legal aggression implied. Monitoring the litigation record before making long-term coverage commitments to branded repurposed drugs would have provided useful early warning in the colchicine case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, Celgene’s extensive litigation to protect the Revlimid franchise created a prolonged exclusivity period for lenalidomide. Understanding the settlement terms of Celgene’s patent litigation with generic manufacturers \u2014 which included authorized generic agreements and volume-limited market entry provisions \u2014 was essential for accurately projecting when generic competition would materially affect Revlimid pricing. That information was available through public litigation filings and specialized patent databases, but it required active tracking rather than passive observation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

International Price Arbitrage and the Access Problem<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Global Disparity in Repurposed Drug Prices<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the most uncomfortable aspects of value-based pricing for repurposed drugs is the international price disparity it creates. The same molecule, with the same clinical evidence, delivers the same health outcomes whether a patient is in the United States, Canada, Australia, or India \u2014 but the price a patient pays varies by factors of 10 to 100.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generic colchicine for cardiovascular prevention is available at approximately $0.30 per pill in Australia, where it is listed for the cardiovascular indication under an international evidence-based guideline framework. [10] In the United States, the same therapeutic outcome requires either off-label generic prescribing (possible but potentially complicated by liability and formulary restrictions) or branded Lodoco at prices reflecting US market norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Revlimid’s international pricing disparity was similarly stark. The UK’s National Health Service negotiated confidential discounts from the list price that resulted in a per-cycle cost dramatically below the US net price, even accounting for US rebates. NICE’s mandatory reimbursement framework \u2014 with its explicit cost-effectiveness threshold \u2014 creates a binding price ceiling that the US system lacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For US payers, this international disparity has a practical implication: reference pricing frameworks that incorporate international benchmarks are increasingly being proposed as a tool for aligning US drug prices with global norms. The Inflation Reduction Act’s Maximum Fair Price methodology does not explicitly incorporate international reference prices, but it considers “therapeutic alternatives” \u2014 which, for repurposed drugs with generic equivalents available abroad, could theoretically include international pricing as a reference point for what the same molecule costs where competitive pricing exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Access-Innovation Tradeoff<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Critics of value-based pricing for repurposed drugs are correct to note that premium pricing restricts access. The Colcrys data is unambiguous: after the price increased from $0.09 to $5.00, prescriptions declined among gout patients who could not afford the drug. A study tracking colchicine use in commercially insured populations found that after the price increase, the odds of a gout patient receiving colchicine within 30 days of diagnosis decreased by 0.5% per month \u2014 a reversal from the pre-Colcrys trend of increasing use. [15] Patients who should have had access to an effective, cheap treatment didn’t, because a regulatory exclusivity program designed to improve drug safety created a market where the safety improvement cost patients their access to the drug entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defenders of the system note that without commercial incentives, the investments that generated the clinical data \u2014 particularly for conditions like PAH or multiple myeloma where patient populations are small \u2014 would not have occurred. Both positions have empirical support. The policy challenge is designing a system that rewards genuine innovation while preventing regulatory arbitrage from generating pricing power divorced from clinical value creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One mechanism that has shown promise is outcomes-based contracting \u2014 agreements between manufacturers and payers where the price paid for a drug is linked to whether it actually achieves the clinical outcomes that justified the value-based price. Aeterna Zentaris and several other companies in the rare disease space have experimented with outcomes-based contracts for repurposed drugs, with variable results. The primary implementation challenges are data infrastructure (attributing outcomes to the drug in real-world settings is harder than in a randomized trial) and contract duration (for drugs that prevent events over years, the relevant outcomes may not be measurable within a contract period).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Good Practice Looks Like: A Framework for Decision-Makers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Analytical Framework<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For any professional making a coverage, contracting, investment, or policy decision about a repurposed drug, the following analytical sequence provides a defensible framework:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, classify the repurposing type. Is this genuine indication extension based on robust clinical trials? Formulation-based repurposing? Regulatory arbitrage? The classification determines how much skepticism to apply to the value-based pricing claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, obtain the complete patent and exclusivity map. Use patent databases \u2014 including specialized pharmaceutical patent resources \u2014 to identify every Orange Book-listed patent, every pending litigation, and every regulatory exclusivity expiration date. Model the competitive entry timeline. If generic entry is likely within three years, a long-term brand commitment at premium prices is not indicated. If the IP estate is genuinely robust for a decade, the pricing analysis looks different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, assess the clinical evidence honestly. What was the comparator in the pivotal trial? Was it a generic version of the same molecule, or a true placebo\/active comparator? Does the evidence establish that the branded repurposed drug is superior to off-label generic prescribing, or only that it is superior to not treating the condition at all?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, calculate the relevant cost-effectiveness benchmark. For US commercial payers, the ICER framework provides a usable reference point, with the caveat that ICER’s models do not always fully account for the generic counterfactual. For Medicaid and Medicare, the relevant analysis increasingly involves downstream cost offsets and the full system economic impact. The QALY threshold should be treated as a ceiling, not a target.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifth, consider the unmet need dimension honestly. For conditions where no adequate alternative exists \u2014 rare diseases, conditions where the generic molecule is unavailable for legal or practical reasons \u2014 higher pricing premiums are more justifiable. For conditions where the generic alternative is easily accessible and physicians are comfortable prescribing off-label based on published trial data, the premium should be modest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Negotiation Posture<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For payers and hospital systems negotiating with manufacturers of repurposed drugs, the patent map is the most powerful negotiating tool available. A manufacturer that knows you understand when its exclusivity expires \u2014 and that you are prepared to transition to the generic at that point \u2014 has a strong incentive to offer meaningful discounts during the exclusivity window in exchange for preferred formulary placement and market share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outcomes-based contracts, where achievable, provide additional leverage by linking the price paid to the actual outcomes the manufacturer claimed in its value-based pricing presentation. A manufacturer that claims Lodoco will prevent X cardiovascular events per thousand patients per year can be held to that number. If it performs better, the payer pays more. If it performs worse, the payer pays less. This symmetry makes the value-based argument more honest \u2014 and, in practice, most manufacturers will negotiate a risk-sharing arrangement only if they are genuinely confident in the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Road Ahead: Repurposed Drugs in an IRA World<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How Medicare Negotiation Changes the Calculus<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Inflation Reduction Act’s introduction of Medicare drug price negotiation creates a new dynamic specifically relevant to repurposed drugs. Under the IRA’s framework, drugs are selected for negotiation based on Medicare expenditure \u2014 meaning high-spending, widely used drugs are the primary targets. Many of the highest-expenditure branded repurposed drugs in Medicare will eventually face this process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Maximum Fair Price methodology that CMS uses in IRA negotiations does not simply replicate ICER’s QALY-based framework. But it does consider therapeutic alternatives and clinical evidence in ways that should, in principle, result in lower Maximum Fair Prices for repurposed drugs where generic alternatives exist. The early negotiated prices for the first ten drugs suggest CMS is extracting significant discounts \u2014 though whether those discounts approach value-based benchmarks will require more complete analysis as additional cohorts are negotiated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For repurposed drugs that have not yet entered the Medicare negotiation pipeline, the IRA’s existence changes manufacturer behavior at launch. A company launching a repurposed drug today knows that if that drug achieves sufficient Medicare expenditure volume, it will eventually face mandatory negotiation. That prospect affects the initial pricing decision \u2014 not because manufacturers will set lower launch prices, but because they will focus more intensively on market share strategies that maximize revenue before the negotiation risk materializes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Coming Wave of AI-Driven Repurposing<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Artificial intelligence-driven drug repurposing is accelerating the pace at which new uses for old molecules are identified. Machine learning models trained on large-scale genomic, proteomic, and clinical data can identify mechanistic connections between existing drugs and disease pathways at a scale and speed that human researchers cannot match. Companies including BenevolentAI, Insilico Medicine, and Recursion Pharmaceuticals have built business models explicitly around AI-accelerated repurposing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This acceleration will create new value-based pricing arguments \u2014 and new opportunities for abuse. When an AI model identifies a new indication for an old drug, who performed the key R&D: the original developer who characterized the molecule decades ago, the academic researchers who generated the mechanistic data the AI was trained on, or the company that built and deployed the AI model? The answer affects the ethical legitimacy of the value-based pricing argument for the resulting product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If AI-driven repurposing delivers a much larger volume of repurposed drugs to the market over the next decade, the aggregate pressure on value-based pricing arguments will intensify. More repurposed drugs competing for the same pool of payer budget will require more sophisticated cost-effectiveness analysis and more rigorous patent intelligence to navigate. The analytical infrastructure \u2014 patent databases, real-world evidence platforms, outcomes-based contracting frameworks \u2014 that payers invest in now will determine their ability to manage that wave effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Value-based pricing for repurposed drugs is not inherently illegitimate \u2014 but it is systematically misapplied.<\/strong> The framework makes sense when applied to drugs that required substantial clinical investment, target conditions with genuine unmet need, and cannot be replaced by cheap generic alternatives. It does not make sense when applied to regulatory arbitrage situations where exclusivity was obtained through modest clinical work on an old, cheap molecule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The type of repurposing matters enormously.<\/strong> Genuine indication extension through adequately powered randomized trials (Lodoco, Revlimid in myeloma) supports different pricing arguments than formulation-based repositioning or regulatory-pathway arbitrage (original Colcrys for gout). Decision-makers need to classify each situation before applying a pricing framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The generic counterfactual is the most important variable that standard value-based models undercount.<\/strong> A repurposed branded drug competing against a cheap generic of the same active ingredient cannot support the same premium pricing as a drug competing against expensive alternatives. Payers who don’t build this into their models will consistently overpay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patent intelligence is the most practical tool available for managing repurposed drug costs.<\/strong> Knowing the precise expiration dates of every patent and regulatory exclusivity protection on a repurposed drug \u2014 and tracking Hatch-Waxman litigation that might accelerate or delay generic entry \u2014 enables informed coverage, contracting, and negotiating decisions. Tools like DrugPatentWatch provide the systematic patent mapping that this analysis requires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

81% of drugs exceed their ICER value-based price benchmarks even after rebates.<\/strong> The default assumption for any new repurposed drug should be that it is priced above its clinical value, and the analytical burden should be on demonstrating otherwise before committing to coverage at list price or near-list price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Inflation Reduction Act changes the strategic environment for repurposed drug pricing.<\/strong> Manufacturers of high-expenditure repurposed drugs in Medicare now face mandatory negotiation risk. That risk affects their market-entry strategy and creates new dynamics in formulary negotiations. Payers should use IRA negotiation outcomes as reference points in their own contracting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Q1: If a doctor can prescribe generic colchicine off-label for the cardiovascular indication instead of Lodoco, why would any payer cover Lodoco at all?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer is more complicated than it appears. Formulary coverage of an FDA-approved drug in its approved indication eliminates physician liability concerns that sometimes accompany off-label prescribing \u2014 a real factor in clinical practice, particularly for cardiologists managing complex patients who may have legal exposure if an adverse event occurs in the context of off-label use. FDA approval also creates a standardized, label-guided dosing protocol (0.5 mg daily) that may improve prescribing consistency relative to off-label use of 0.6 mg generic tablets. Patient assistance programs offered by Lodoco’s manufacturer may also make the brand cheaper for some insured patients than the generic. None of these arguments fully justifies a large price premium over the generic, but they represent real clinical and administrative friction that manufacturers exploit to sustain market position during the exclusivity period. Payers that want to manage this cost should implement prior authorization protocols requiring a trial of generic colchicine 0.5 mg (or 0.6 mg with physician justification) before authorizing Lodoco coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q2: Is ICER’s QALY-based framework actually the right tool for evaluating repurposed drugs, given its known limitations?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ICER’s framework has real limitations for repurposed drugs specifically because its cost-effectiveness models often fail to account for the off-label generic counterfactual, which is frequently the most relevant real-world comparator. A QALY model that compares Lodoco to “no treatment” or to “statin therapy alone” will generate a different cost-effectiveness ratio than a model that includes “generic colchicine 0.5 mg off-label” as an arm. In principle, ICER could and should include the off-label generic as a comparator for repurposed drugs where that alternative is clinically plausible. In practice, it does not always do so. Payers should conduct their own pharmacoeconomic modeling that explicitly includes the generic counterfactual and model the real-world switching costs (prior authorization burden, physician adoption lag) honestly, rather than relying uncritically on published ICER assessments as the sole analytical input.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q3: How does the 505(b)(2) FDA pathway interact with value-based pricing claims? Does using published data to support an NDA change the legitimacy of a price premium?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using 505(b)(2) to rely on published clinical data \u2014 rather than conducting entirely proprietary trials \u2014 materially affects the cost structure of repurposing. If the pivotal clinical evidence for a new indication was generated in publicly funded or independently funded trials that the NDA applicant did not pay for, the R&D cost basis for the value-based pricing argument is weaker. However, there is a legitimate counterargument: 505(b)(2) applicants still bear the costs of the NDA submission itself, post-approval pharmacovigilance, label development, and the commercial infrastructure for market entry. Agepha Pharma, for Lodoco, submitted an NDA based substantially on the LoDoCo2 and COLCOT trial data \u2014 trials it did not sponsor. Its development costs were lower as a result. Whether the resulting commercial exclusivity and pricing power are proportionate to those actual costs is a legitimate policy question, and one that the IRA’s Maximum Fair Price framework will eventually test in the Medicare context if Lodoco achieves sufficient spending volume.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q4: What happens to value-based pricing for a repurposed drug when the evidence supporting its new indication is later challenged by real-world data or a new trial?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is one of the under-discussed risks of value-based pricing as a contracting mechanism. If a drug is priced at a premium based on a QALY model derived from trial data, and subsequent real-world evidence shows that the drug’s effect size in broader clinical practice is smaller than the trial suggested, the value-based price benchmark retroactively becomes too high \u2014 but there is no automatic mechanism to adjust the price. Outcomes-based contracts address this risk by linking the price actually paid to real-world performance metrics. However, most repurposed drug contracts in the US do not use outcomes-based structures. For cardiovascular prevention specifically, the challenge is particularly acute: the event-rate outcomes that matter occur over years, not months, making within-contract-period measurement difficult. Payers should treat value-based price estimates for cardiovascular repurposed drugs with appropriate uncertainty margins, and should include re-pricing triggers in multi-year preferred agreements if real-world effectiveness data becomes available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q5: With AI-driven drug repurposing accelerating, what should hospital systems and payers be doing now to prepare for a wave of new repurposed drug launches?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most important investment is in the analytical infrastructure to evaluate repurposed drugs rapidly and rigorously at the time of launch, rather than reacting months or years later. This means building or contracting for systematic patent intelligence capabilities \u2014 the ability to map the complete IP and regulatory exclusivity picture for any new repurposed drug within weeks of launch. It means establishing pharmacoeconomic modeling capacity that includes the generic counterfactual as a standard input. It means negotiating outcomes-based contract templates that can be adapted to specific drugs without requiring prolonged legal negotiation each time. It means educating physicians on the clinical and financial dimensions of off-label generic prescribing so that formulary committees have realistic assumptions about physician behavior. And it means engaging actively with the IRA negotiation process \u2014 the prices CMS negotiates for high-expenditure drugs will increasingly set the reference point for commercial payer negotiations, making those negotiated prices a critical data input for institutional strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. DiMasi, J. A., Grabowski, H. G., & Hansen, R. W. (2016). Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics<\/em>, 47, 20\u201333. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jhealeco.2016.01.012<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. DrugPatentWatch. (2025, August 20). Drug repositioning in rare\/orphans and neglected diseases: Unlocking hidden value in the pharmaceutical arsenal<\/em>. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/drug-repositioning-concept-classification-methodology-and-importance-in-rare-orphans-and-neglected-diseases\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. DrugPatentWatch. (2025, December 2). The repurposing revolution: Unlocking hidden value in pharmaceutical patents<\/em>. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/the-repurposing-revolution-unlocking-hidden-value-in-pharmaceutical-patents\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Nidorf, S. M., Fiolet, A. T. L., Mosterd, A., et al. (2020). Colchicine in patients with chronic coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine<\/em>, 383(19), 1838\u20131847. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1056\/NEJMoa2021372<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Toumi, M., & R\u00e9muzat, C. (2017). Value added medicines: What value repurposed medicines might bring to society? Journal of Market Access & Health Policy<\/em>, 5(1), 1264717. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/20016689.2017.1264717<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Ho, A. (2025). Old drugs, new opportunities: Advancing cancer care through repurposing. Cancer Medicine<\/em>, 14. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/cam4.70947<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Manno, R. (2023, September 28). The unapproved-drugs initiative is coming to an end. The Rheumatologist<\/em>. https:\/\/www.the-rheumatologist.org\/article\/the-unapproved-drugs-initiative-is-coming-to-an-end\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Works in Progress. (2026, February 11). The three-thousand-year journey of colchicine. Works in Progress Magazine<\/em>. https:\/\/worksinprogress.co\/issue\/the-three-thousand-year-journey-of-colchicine\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Reed, M. J., Mostaghimi, A., & Waxman, I. (2020). Colchicine: A case study for what’s wrong with US drug pricing. MDedge<\/em>. https:\/\/ma1.mdedge.com\/content\/colchicine-case-study-whats-wrong-us-drug-pricing<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Doshi, P., Woloshin, S., Hoffmann, T., et al. (2021). Prolonged increases in public-payer spending and prices after unapproved drug initiative approval of colchicine. JAMA Internal Medicine<\/em>, 181(2), 263\u2013265. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamainternmed.2020.5017<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Rheumatology Live. (2015). Generic colchicine: Victory in one battle on drug prices. https:\/\/www.rheum-live.com\/view\/generic-colchicine-victory-one-battle-drug-prices<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. PharmacyChecker Blog. (2016, December 9). Colchicine prices are a rip off in America: Why? How? https:\/\/pharmacycheckerblog.com\/colchicine-prices-are-a-rip-off-in-america-why-how<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. Kesselheim, A. S., Connors, J. M., & Avorn, J. (2015). Good intentions, unintended consequences, and unrealized benefits: The unapproved drugs initiative and colchicine. Arthritis & Rheumatology<\/em>, 67(9), 2266\u20132269. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/art.39189<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. Medfinder. (2026). Colchicine shortage update: What patients need to know in 2026. https:\/\/www.medfinder.com\/blog\/colchicine-shortage-update-what-patients-need-to-know-in-2026-5ce2b<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  15. Desai, R. J., Fischer, M. A., Liu, J., et al. (2016). Reductions in use of colchicine after FDA enforcement of market exclusivity in a commercially insured population. Arthritis Care & Research<\/em>, 68(8), 1202\u20131210. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/acr.22817<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  16. Rheumatology Live. Why is colchicine so expensive now? https:\/\/www.rheum-live.com\/view\/why-is-colchicine-so-expensive-now<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  17. Cardiac Interventions Today. (2023, June 20). Agepha Pharma’s Lodoco anti-inflammatory drug for cardiovascular disease approved by FDA. https:\/\/citoday.com\/news\/agepha-pharmas-lodoco-anti-inflammatory-drug-for-cardiovascular-disease-approved-by-fda<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  18. Fierce Pharma. (2023, August 14). Agepha Pharma gets ancient gout remedy colchicine across FDA finish line for heart disease. https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/agepha-pharma-gets-ancient-gout-remedy-colchicine-across-fda-finish-line-heart-disease<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  19. DAIC. (2023, June 21). U.S. FDA approves first anti-inflammatory drug for cardiovascular disease. https:\/\/www.dicardiology.com\/content\/us-fda-approves-first-anti-inflammatory-drug-cardiovascular-disease<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  20. TCTMD. (2023). FDA approves colchicine for decreasing CV events. https:\/\/www.tctmd.com\/news\/fda-approves-colchicine-decreasing-cv-events<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  21. Medical Economics. (2023, June). FDA approves Lodoco, first anti-inflammatory drug for cardiovascular disease. https:\/\/www.medicaleconomics.com\/view\/fda-approves-lodoco-first-anti-inflammatory-drug-for-cardiovascular-disease<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  22. Drug Topics. First anti-inflammatory drug for cardiovascular disease approved by FDA. https:\/\/www.drugtopics.com\/view\/first-anti-inflammatory-drug-for-cardiovascular-disease-approved-by-fda<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  23. Cardiovascular Business. (2023, September 14). FDA approves colchicine, the first anti-inflammatory drug for treating cardiovascular disease. https:\/\/cardiovascularbusiness.com\/topics\/clinical\/pharmaceutics\/fda-colchicine-anti-inflammatory-cardiovascular-disease<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Lodoco (colchicine) approval letter (NDA 215727). https:\/\/www.accessdata.fda.gov\/drugsatfda_docs\/appletter\/2023\/215727Orig1s000ltr.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  25. Beall, R. F., Hwang, T. J., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2019). Pre-market development times for biologic versus small-molecule drugs. Nature Biotechnology<\/em>, 37(7), 708\u2013711.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  26. Hay, M., Thomas, D. W., Craighead, J. L., Economides, C., & Rosenthal, J. (2014). Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nature Biotechnology<\/em>, 32(1), 40\u201351.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  27. PubMed Central. (2021). Translational success and pharmacoeconomic lessons of pandemic-driven drug repurposing. https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC12205848\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  28. Wouters, O. J., McKee, M., & Luyten, J. (2020). Estimated research and development investment needed to bring a new medicine to market, 2009-2018. JAMA<\/em>, 323(9), 844\u2013853.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  29. Liberti, L., & McAuslane, N. (2022). A novel perspective on pharmaceutical R&D costs: Opportunities for reductions. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research<\/em>, 22(3), 359\u2013365.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  30. Paulden, M. (2017). The value of innovation under value-based pricing. BMC Health Services Research<\/em>, 17(Suppl 1), 462.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  31. Dane, A., Uyl-de Groot, C., & van der Kuy, H. (2024). Unraveling elements of value-based pricing from a pharmaceutical industry’s perspective: A scoping review. Frontiers in Pharmacology<\/em>, 15, 1298923. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fphar.2024.1298923<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  32. Singhal, S., et al. (1999). Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma. New England Journal of Medicine<\/em>, 341, 1565\u20131571.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  33. National Cancer Institute. (2018). Celgene’s patent fortress protects Revlimid, Thalomid [NPR Health News]. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/health-shots\/2018\/05\/17\/571986468\/how-a-drugmaker-gamed-the-system-to-keep-generic-competition-away<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  34. ProPublica. (2020). The price of remission: This cancer drug saves lives \u2014 but costs a fortune. https:\/\/www.propublica.org\/article\/revlimid-price-cancer-celgene-drugs-fda-multiple-myeloma<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  35. Globe and Mail. Ottawa moves to reduce price of drug after cancer patients complain of gouging. https:\/\/www.theglobeandmail.com\/amp\/life\/ottawa-moves-to-reduce-price-of-drug-after-cancer-patients-complain-of-gouging\/article18443904\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  36. STAT News. (2019, January 22). Celgene, sold for $74 billion, leaves a legacy of chutzpah in science and drug pricing. https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2019\/01\/22\/celgene-legacy-chutzpah-science-drug-pricing\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  37. BioPharma Dive. (2017, November 3). Celgene pays $280M to make fraud allegations go away. https:\/\/www.biopharmadive.com\/news\/celgene-pays-280m-to-make-fraud-allegations-go-away\/447932\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  38. DrugPatentWatch. Thalomid drug patent profile. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/p\/tradename\/THALOMID<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  39. SEC. (2010). Celgene Corp Form CORRESP FY2010 \u2014 patent litigation summary. https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/0000816284\/000095012310055985\/filename1.htm<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  40. NCBIBookshelf. (2014). Value propositions for drug repurposing. https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/books\/NBK235871\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  41. DrugPatentWatch. Pharmaceutical drug prices and trends for Viagra. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/p\/drug-price\/drugname\/VIAGRA<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  42. DrugPatentWatch. (2025, August 21). How Pfizer kept Viagra generic competition at bay after patent expiration. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/viagras-resilience-in-the-face-of-generic-competition-a-pharmaceutical-market-analysis\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  43. Wikipedia. Sildenafil. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sildenafil<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  44. GoodRx. Sildenafil (Revatio) for pulmonary arterial hypertension. https:\/\/www.goodrx.com\/revatio\/sildenafil-for-pulmonary-arterial-hypertension<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  45. Pulmonary Hypertension Association. Sildenafil (Revatio) \u2014 PH Association. https:\/\/phassociation.org\/pulmonary-hypertension\/treatments\/targeted-therapies\/sildenafil\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  46. Medscape. (2005, November 22). Sildenafil for pulmonary arterial hypertension, repackaged as Revatio. https:\/\/www.medscape.com\/viewarticle\/538422<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  47. Pfizer. (2009). FDA approves intravenous formulation of Pfizer’s Revatio (sildenafil) for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. https:\/\/www.pfizer.com\/news\/press-release\/press-release-detail\/fda_approves_intravenous_formulation_of_pfizer_s_revatio_sildenafil_for_the_treatment_of_pulmonary_arterial_hypertension<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  48. ClinicalTrials.gov. Sildenafil to Tadalafil in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (SITAR). NCT01043627. https:\/\/clinicaltrials.gov\/study\/NCT01043627<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  49. Healthcare Economist. (2026, May 1). Are drugs priced in accordance with value? https:\/\/www.healthcare-economist.com\/2026\/05\/01\/are-drug-prices-value-based\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  50. IntuitionLabs. (2026, February 14). ICER vs NICE: How the US and UK assess drug value and price. https:\/\/intuitionlabs.ai\/articles\/icer-vs-nice-drug-pricing-comparison<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  51. Beall, R. F., Reidpath, D. D., & Bhatt, D. L. (2021). Are drugs priced in accordance with value? A comparison of value-based and net prices using Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports. Value in Health<\/em>, 24(5), 689\u2013695. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jval.2021.01.010<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  52. PharmExec. Can a new value framework help ease friction over orphan drug prices? https:\/\/www.pharmexec.com\/view\/can-new-value-framework-help-ease-friction-over-orphan-drug-prices<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  53. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. (2025). Launch price and access report. https:\/\/icer.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/ICER_2025_Launch-Price-and-Access-Final-Report_For-Publication.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  54. ICER. New cost-effectiveness methods to determine value. https:\/\/icer.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Pearson-2019_Potential-Cures.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  55. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Value assessment framework. https:\/\/icer.org\/our-approach\/methods-process\/value-assessment-framework\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  56. ICER. (2024). 2023 Value assessment framework for publication. https:\/\/icer.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/ICER_2023_2026_VAF_For-Publication_062725.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  57. Sawhney, T. G., & Thakur, N. (2023). Drug cost-effectiveness assessments require standards for rigor and inclusion. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research<\/em>, 12(3), e230009. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.36469\/001c.68194<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Colchicine cost nine cents a pill for more than two centuries. Then, in 2009, a company ran a 185-patient trial […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":38681,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"modified_by":"DrugPatentWatch","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38677","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38677"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38677\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38682,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38677\/revisions\/38682"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38681"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}