OBJECTIVES: Flat pricing can have significant implications particularly when factoring high cost, extensive utilization, and typical occurrence of dose reductions. This analysis looks to define flat pricing strategies by considering drug type, frequency in each of the 8 major markets, and therapy area.

METHODS: All brands where flat pricing occurred across the 8 major markets (US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Japan, and China) with an available pricing history within GlobalData’s Price Intelligence (POLI) database were identified. Flat pricing was considered if the packs had the same brand name, company, dosage form, and ex-manufacturer price but different dosage.

RESULTS: A total 1,296 brands were identified applying flat pricing, 35% of which were in the US followed by Italy (30%), and the least of which were identified in Japan (4%) and China (2%). For brands priced both flatly and linearly, the percentage of packs that were flatly priced ranged from an average 48% in Japan to 58% in France and the US. Across different molecule types, 50% of branded biologics had flat pricing applied compared to 43% of off-patent small molecules, and 35% of on-patent small molecules. Only 8% of brands with flat pricing applied had an orphan drug designation. Of non-orphan indications, 11% of brands with flat pricing fell within type 2 diabetes, followed by epilepsy (4%).

CONCLUSIONS: Most flat pricing commonly occurs in the US and major European markets compared to the Asia-Pacific region with flat pricing only applying to a small percentage of products in Japan and China. Flat pricing was seen more for patent-protected biologics rather than biosimilars, possibly as a method to keep cost high while dose reductions occur. Alternatively, within small molecules, flat pricing was seen more for off-patent originator medicines, potentially to protect price against competition in saturated markets such as type 2 diabetes.