Comment on ‘Cost differences between psoriasis biologics: implications for the Irish High Tech Scheme’
Clicks: 2
ID: 325822
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
0.0
/100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
0 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Cost comparisons of psoriasis biologics rely on list prices, but confidential rebates can substantially alter real costs—often hidden even from prescribers. Ireland's Framework Agreement mandates a transparent 37% price cut plus 12.5% rebate once a biosimilar enters the market, but deeper discounts for Best Value Biologics stay confidential. European tendering data show actual discounts of 80–90% off list price, meaning cost-minimisation analyses using list prices alone risk misleading clinicians. This letter proposes an approach similar to that in Scotland or Denmark - sharing relative net-cost rankings with prescribers without disclosing confidential absolute prices.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7203868313
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Sophie Diong, Niamh Kearney |
| Journal | clinical and experimental dermatology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/ced/llag368
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.