iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Vaccine Prices Disclosed By UNICEF For First Time

Vaccine Costs

By LINDA A. JOHNSON   05/28/11 05:18 PM ET   AP

-- UNICEF is for the first time publicizing what drugmakers charge it for vaccines, as the world's biggest buyer of lifesaving immunizations aims to spark price competition in the face of rising costs.

On Friday, UNICEF posted on its website the actual prices that it has paid individual drugmakers for 16 vaccines purchased over the last decade. It's a move that a few Western pharmaceutical companies don't support. Novartis AG and Merck & Co., which only sells one of its many children's vaccines to UNICEF, both declined to have their prices published.

UNICEF said it will continue to disclose pricing of future vaccine deals, with the hope that the transparency will push drugmakers to cut prices and thus allow the organization to vaccinate more children and save more lives.

"Transparency will also help foster a competitive, diverse supplier base," said Shanelle Hall, director of UNICEF's supply division. She noted that it also will help UNICEF's partners and those governments that buy vaccines on their own to make more informed decisions in price negotiations with drugmakers.

UNICEF last year spent $757 million to provide 2.5 billion doses of vaccines to 99 countries, reaching an estimated 58 percent of the world's children.

Its price list shows significant disparity, with Western drugmakers often charging UNICEF double what companies in India and Indonesia do. Just as striking is the steady rise in prices in the last decade, with the cost of vaccines against measles, polio and tetanus roughly doubling between 2001 and 2010. Prices of a few vaccines have remained flat or declined as additional competitors entered the market.

There's also a huge spread in prices among various vaccines.

As might be expected, shots that have been around for some time and those vaccines made by multiple companies cost just pennies per dose, such as tetanus and tuberculosis shots and oral polio vaccine. But a combination shot for immunization against diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and haemophilus influenza can run UNICEF $3 or more per dose. The dual vaccine against 10 or more strains of pneumococcal disease, which causes ear infections and meningitis, costs $3.50 a shot. And some of the vaccines require more than one booster shot, adding to the cost.

The cost is partly justified by the complex manufacturing process used to make combination vaccines. And UNICEF still pays far less than the $71 and $114 per dose, respectively, that is charged in the U.S. for those two vaccines. But given that the organization's mission is to immunize entire populations of at-risk children, any savings means more can be vaccinated.

British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline PLC said in a statement that it "always offers UNICEF our vaccines at our lowest price as they are targeted at the people who need them the most, but are least able to pay. We welcome UNICEF's move to publish retrospective prices for tenders and hope that this will help inform decisions for future vaccine procurement." Messages left with other Western vaccine makers seeking comment weren't immediately returned Saturday afternoon.

Daniel Berman, deputy director of the Doctors Without Borders Campaign for Essential Medicines, called the new price disclosures "a real step forward."

"By getting access to these prices, buyers will be able to take advantage of the increasing capacity of emerging countries to develop and produce quality vaccines at significantly lower costs," he said in a statement.

He added that GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, "should flex its purchasing muscles to encourage manufacturers" to produce vaccines that don't require refrigeration and can be administered through patches or liquids, rather than needles.

GAVI, which is supported by contributions from developed nations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is the primary funder of vaccines purchased by UNICEF. Helen Evans, interim CEO of the GAVI Alliance, said in a joint statement with UNICEF that GAVI "strongly believes in timely, transparent and accurate information on pricing."

Many of the largest global pharmaceutical companies – most recently Johnson & Johnson – have jumped into the vaccine business in recent years to diversify revenue as many of their blockbuster pills are facing generic competition. Vaccines are all but immune from generic competition in developed countries, and some newer shots, such as Pfizer Inc.'s Prevnar pneumococcal vaccine, now bring in billions of dollars in revenue each year.

Those big companies are looking to less-developed countries for future sales growth, and vaccines against crippling and deadly childhood diseases are cost-effective purchases for countries with small health budgets.

AIDS groups and advocates for affordable health care in developing countries have campaigned for years for big pharmaceutical companies to sell their patented medicines to those countries at drastically reduced prices, or to allow generic drug makers in countries such as India to do so. They've had some success, so UNICEF's new price plan is a logical strategy.

UNICEF's Hall said the organization hopes to expand the transparency initiative to other essential products that it buys for children. UNICEF supports child health and nutrition, good water and sanitation, and quality basic education for boys and girls across the globe.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST IMPACT

-- UNICEF is for the first time publicizing what drugmakers charge it for vaccines, as the world's biggest buyer of lifesaving immunizations aims to spark price competition in the face of rising cost...
-- UNICEF is for the first time publicizing what drugmakers charge it for vaccines, as the world's biggest buyer of lifesaving immunizations aims to spark price competition in the face of rising cost...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 591
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
01:58 AM on 05/31/2011
Well done! The public has the right to know. After all, the funding comes indirectly from any of us.
http://www.lifestyle-after50.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
92102
Friends Don't Let Friends Watch FOX News
11:46 PM on 05/30/2011
Did anyone notice that two vaccines cost Unicef $3.00 and $3.50 respectively, yet in the US they cost us $71.00 and $114.00? I wonder how much of that price differential is spent on advertising. "Ask your doctor if xyz is right for you." We are being screwed (cialis anyone?) and not even getting dinner first.
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
11:56 PM on 05/30/2011
I know. And we're suffering sooo bad because of it. It's so unfair that the desperately poor don't pay as much as we do...I mean, as much as our insurance companies do. It's just so unfair.

Seriously, is this the FauxNews web page? It sure look like it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
92102
Friends Don't Let Friends Watch FOX News
12:38 AM on 05/31/2011
I am glad that the poor get subsidized vaccines. My point was that big pharma is ripping us off because they can. I just wish that since a good part of the R
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
92102
Friends Don't Let Friends Watch FOX News
12:45 AM on 05/31/2011
Rats. HP cut off half of my response. I forgot that ampersands are prohibited.

I was saying that since the US funds a good portion of research and development we should get a break on the price as well. Pharmaceutical and insurance executives seem to be doing just fine while there is significant need for increased access to preventive healthcare.

Until we go to single payer and get rid of the insurance middle man that provides no value and pharma companies are forced to negotiate prices with medicare and/or whomever the single payer is we will continue to have overpriced vaccines, medicines and less accessability to healthcare in general.

I suspect my views are quite different than those promoted by FOX news.
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
11:59 PM on 05/30/2011
Except for Gardasil, what vaccine ads have you seen? On TV? In magazines? Do you have an links to any ads for childhood immunizations?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
92102
Friends Don't Let Friends Watch FOX News
12:49 AM on 05/31/2011
There is a campaign in San Diego running ads daily for a vaccine to prevent Whooping Cough. I agree children should be vaccinated and it should be affordable for everyone. Just a note, I get a flu vaccine every year. I don't want to take any chances with my health either.
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
11:31 PM on 05/30/2011
$750 million for 2,500,000,000 doses.

For the mathematically illiterate, that's called a bargain.

Has anyone looked up the costs associated with each of these preventable diseases? Not just lives, but actual costs for medical treatments. Look them up before forming your opinion based on some blog posts.
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:59 AM on 05/31/2011
Josephius -- a "bargain" is only a bargain if you actually need the product on offer.
Be careful with that shopping basket!
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
02:00 PM on 05/31/2011
Maybe you can get a job with UNICEF and set them straight. They obviously do not have nearly the insight or experience dealing with issues like this as you do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heather XW
08:15 PM on 05/30/2011
If you have the desire to become active and transform what's happening to our children please join The Canary Party. We are organizing a voting block to assure *real* change. We welcome the left and right we do not discriminate but we do ask that we all join hands under the same umbrella for the sake of children's health.

http://CanaryParty.org/
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
08:27 PM on 05/30/2011
No thanks.

Too bad your 'informative' web page doesn't provide any health statistics from the pre-immunization era. Peanut allergies or polio. Hmmm, tough one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heather XW
10:37 PM on 05/30/2011
More reckless fear mongering. We are not anti-vaccine. We are for vaccine safety.
03:48 AM on 05/31/2011
Yeah! Let's go back to the good old days when babies and children died of polio! And measles! And whooping cough! I can't wait to read your web page, how wonderful to finally get rid of all those "dangerous" doctors!!! /sarcasm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heather XW
07:13 AM on 05/31/2011
Baseless fearmongering. This is not an anti-vaccine party. You should read the platform before you cast judgment.

This is not about going backward, we're moving forward.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
02:24 PM on 05/31/2011
C'mon...didn't you see her mini-bio? It says "pro-vaccine" right there!

Kind of like the Wizard of Oz though. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
06:32 PM on 05/30/2011
A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. Population

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues
Volume 74, Issue 14, 2011, Pages 903 - 916
Author: Gayle DeLonga

The reason for the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s is a mystery. Although individuals probably have a genetic predisposition to develop autism, researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers are also needed. One of those triggers might be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive. Using regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted.
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
08:33 PM on 05/30/2011
Yeah, no conflicts of intrest here. A Ph.D. In business publishing in a 3rd tier science journal? and she works for who again?

http://www.safeminds.org/about/executive-board.html

you've got ot be kidding!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taximom5
09:45 PM on 05/30/2011
The PhD scientists I know say that the Journal of Toxicolgy and Environmental Health is one of the best scientific journals out there, so not sure why you would rate it as third-rate, unless we're talking about your own personal conflicts of interest.

As far as her supposed "conflicts of interest," she advocates for safer vaccines. That's hardly a conflict of interest. Gee, if fewer children die from unsafe vaccines, how exactly does she financially benefit?

I think you're just upset that, as someone not dependent in any way on the pharmaceutical cartel, she can publish the truth without worrying that speaking the truth = career suicide, the way it is for those in science who go against Big Pharm.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heather XW
10:32 PM on 05/30/2011
Is there something you would like to say about the findings or data? Why not offer something worthwhile instead of the same old slandering rhetoric?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
92102
Friends Don't Let Friends Watch FOX News
11:40 PM on 05/30/2011
Has anyone looked at the chemicals and other additives in processed foods that have become more and more common as a factor in the rise of Autism? I'm sure that stuff can't be good for us.
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
12:02 AM on 05/31/2011
And how do those 'chemicals' fundamentally alter brain physiology?
photo
VA Jill
I'm not perfect and neither are you
08:58 AM on 05/30/2011
The absolute LAST thing that Big Pharma wants is transparency!
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
11:21 PM on 05/30/2011
Exactly. Which imprecisely why the numbers have been provided.
Josephius
No, not microbio, molecular bio and biochemistry!
11:27 PM on 05/30/2011
Which is precisely....

Sorry. Damn iPad.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
godipo
04:47 AM on 05/30/2011
I suggested in another post on this thread that having one company control all medical schools protects a monopoly; we need competing schools and, in line with free market thinking, have a little more of 'buyer beware' at play, rather than a license from the government to one company. I was responded to with a sarcastic comment-perhaps because of my rhetorical flourishes: I said something like 'everyone should be able to start a medical school'...the problem is serious. We need criteria for people who handle our health, but we also need competition. And not only for economic reasons, also in order to be sure that innovative ideas are in play, that one group's orthodoxy is another group's medieval procedure. I think a lot more progress can be made in this area and that the problem deserves attention and discussion and ideas.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
02:11 AM on 05/30/2011
whats the problem , you want to save the childen the drug companies want to make sex with you!
iconico62
don't blame the mirror if you have a broken nose
11:40 PM on 05/29/2011
All UNICEF would need to do is have an open bid for all drugs it needs. Period. No more of these billionaires squeezing blood from turnips.
photo
LogicalMathMan
Math, Finance, English, Business Instructor
08:53 PM on 05/29/2011
One marvels at the magnanimity of western nations and organizations when one is witness to the turnaround in remote villages because of their efforts. Kudos to UNICEF, the Gates Foundation, Clinton's Global Initiative, Doctors without Borders, The Red Cross and countless NGOs and organizations the world over, that make it happen.

It is this generosity that will rid us of terrorism.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
02:12 AM on 05/30/2011
and education, education of the girls specificly!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LavishTantrums
Lawyer, Writer
08:46 PM on 05/29/2011
Merck executives do relatively well. You would think maybe the companies would do more in the category of FREE vaccines, if the company is doing well enough to pay this much to one man.

http://www.dddmag.com/news-Former-Merck-CEO-Compensation-Up-65-41511.aspx
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackranger
08:38 PM on 05/29/2011
Let there be a lot of competitive bidding, and let UNICEF reduce the price of trying to save all the children in the world from totally preventative diseases. In the long run, this will wipe out the diseases, how is that for a healthcare savings?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mspat44417
Rock it if ya got it...Music
06:46 PM on 05/29/2011
The health system in general in the U S is a joke...they get rich off sick people because they know they can....The government will never do anything about it...You can say it cost this much to do that or it cost this much to research or what ever..Its still just greed...Other wise why would they be able to sell generic drugs for so much more cheaper just because it doesn't have the name brand on it....but put the brand name on it and wow it cost much more...So all of you who are trying to make it ok with your comments of where the money is spent for drugs ...Please..no one believes it...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hershobr
08:13 AM on 05/30/2011
It might be a joke to you, but all major medical advancements are developed in the United States because of our incentives to developing things, as well as the best hospitals and doctors in the world are in the U.S.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
92102
Friends Don't Let Friends Watch FOX News
01:03 AM on 05/31/2011
I agree with what you say regarding medical advancements (often subsidized by government money such as grants to research universities and public universities) and that we have the best hospitals (in most cases, although medical mistakes and infections at hospitals is on the rise) and doctors.

The problem with our healthcare system is cost. A good portion of that cost, upwards of 30% goes to insurance companies who's only function is to limit access to treatments and make money for themselves. Additionally, not having universal coverage leads to more expensive emergency room visits, lack of preventive and wellness care and higher costs of treatment more advanced illness instead of catching it in early stages.

As an American I am all for liberty and freedom, however, when your poor choices, such as refusal to buy insurance/medicare impacts me because my costs go up in order to pay for the uninsured that's not justice for all. It's time we entered the 21st century and provide healthcare to all Americans. Increasing the size of the pool and getting rid of the insurance company leaches will bring down costs without affecting our world class, but not 100% accessable healthcare.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:12 AM on 05/31/2011
No -- not all major medical advancements are developed in the US. What makes you think that? Where on earth do you think CT scans, portable defibrillators, single-use syringes, birth control pills, via gra, beta blockers, dna / stem cell / cloning research. bionic limbs, liver / heart /facial transplants came from???? Not the US.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:29 PM on 05/29/2011
Good news. Capitalism's invisible hand does not work if prices are not public.
05:39 PM on 05/29/2011
Thought I would post this as a main focus of discussion. If you actually look at a drug companies financial's you'll notice that almost ~60 cents of every revenue dollar goes to SG and A. which for the most part is likely sales and marketing expenses. ~20 cents goes to R and D and ~5-10 cents goes to cost of goods sold. So the real cost of producing a drug is about 20 5 10 cents on the dollar. R and D, Actual production costs, true administration fees. In a truely competitive market the price of a drug would likely be about half of the current price on average.

with the passage of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) of 1987 which effectively effectively gave monopoly power to the big pharma companies under the guise of consumer protection, by effectively fragmenting the American market from the global market. pharma was given a massive incentive to market direct to consumer. if you check the historical financials you'll probably notice a huge ramp up in the advertising as a percentage of every revenue dollar between 1987 and now. the problem was further exacerbated by the medicare, medicaid bills that have been passed which make it impossible to reject pharmaceutical prescriptions based on cost, resulting in inelastic demand.
05:40 PM on 05/29/2011
By directly marketing to the consumers and the consumers baring very little cost for the drugs there is no cost/benefit linkage. Essentially what it boils down to is pharma can charge whatever they want because they now have significantly more market power then the individual consumers and the institutions that should be protecting the marketplace have been rigged in favor of the producers.

Unicef doing what they are doing is a very good thing. Cheers to them. I doubt it will help them because I do believe that the pharma companies probably are supplying them the drugs at cost or very close to it, but it is a great symbolic gesture of what needs to happen in the marketplace, transparency and competition.

I really believe if these main structural issues are fixed that the cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP will likely fall and be more inline with other countries throughout the world, which make it illegal to directly market to consumers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Proletarian101
08:48 PM on 05/29/2011
I would be interested to see where you got those numbers. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you did get those numbers from someplace and didn't make them up. But having said that, you may want to actually look at those costs yourself instead of taking somebody else word for it and then end up spreading misinformation.
08:59 PM on 05/29/2011
go look at the financials of a sample of pharmaceutical companies its all public information. that's what i did... its all public information published in their 10k's. so yes i did look up the information myself and no i'm not spreading misinformation.
09:13 PM on 05/29/2011
its pretty easy to find to truth if you know where to look and not depend on hearsay... I suggest you also read to bill... I also did that... it was sold as a bill to stop the importation of "unsafe" drugs and as a measure of consumer protection. if you actually read the bill their are elements of that in it but if you actually think through the economic reprocussion's the only logical outcome that one could deduce from the legislation is the fragmentation of the american pharma market from the global market. Now i know that our politicians are not economists and I don't know if that was the true intent of the bill but... my fear is it is... and most of the legislation passed surrounding the healthcare market tends to support my hypothesis of a market where the regulators have been "captured" by the producers... I'm currently working my way through obamacare... but at 2k pages its been rough...

unfortunately you can not believe anything you read/hear in the news anymore... no real analysis happens... its mostly hearsay... you must really now go to the source...