OBJECTIVES: Conventional pricing theory suggests that therapies with additional benefits over an existing option may garner a higher price to account for this incremental value/benefit. For reformulated therapies such as extended-release (ER) products, common patient benefits (e.g. potentially reduced pill burden and side effects) should provide enough incremental benefit to warrant a price higher than the immediate-release (IR) formulation of the same molecule. The objective of this study is to quantify the intrinsic value of ER formulations by exploring the price comparison between ER and IR formulations. METHODS: To identify therapies of interest, a search of the Epocrates drug database was conducted and all therapies with names indicative of reformulated products were analyzed. The price of each ER product was captured for the first day of market availability and compared to the branded IR formulation. An analysis of IR generic entry and the time elapsed from branded IR launch was conducted to determine if these confounding factors explained the observations. RESULTS: Of the 19 ER products that were analyzed, the majority (58%) had prices lower than the IR product. Only one-quarter (26%), had prices higher than the IR product and the remaining products had equivalent prices. Generic entry did not correlate with the observed price comparisons between ER and IR formulations. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage price difference between branded ER and branded IR products did not uncover a standard incremental value that would indicate there is an intrinsic value provided by ER formulations. An analysis of generic entry failed to show that a reduced price reference may be a factor for products with lower ER prices. It is likely that pricing decisions for the ER products included unique price sensitivity studies and considered confidential corporate strategy, as is best practice.