Price list for spring and fall, 1917 /

This study examines the Name-Your-Own-Price (NYOP) retailer’s information revelation strategy when competing with list-price channel. We propose an integrated economic framework focusing on the comparison of expected consumer surplus from bidding at NYOP auction and guaranteed consumer surplus from buying at a list price. We then conduct an empirical study to examine the effects of seller-supplied price information on NYOP bidding outcome (especially on expected winning probability and the number of bidders). The results of our study strongly indicate the effects of seller-supplied information on expected winning probability (as well as the expected consumer surplus) in a NYOP auction. We also illustrate the strategic implications of seller-supplied price information via a revenue simulation for the NYOP seller. Our results suggest that NYOP seller may increase his expected revenue by (1) provide only the upper bound of its threshold price when list price is high (low expected consumer surplus from buying at list price); (2) provide only the lower bound of its threshold price when list price is low (high expected consumer surplus from buying at list price); (3) provide both the upper and lower bound of its threshold price when consumer surplus of buying at list price is unknown.

Background: Canada has a publicly funded healthcare system with a complex drug funding process. After Health Canada approval to market a drug, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) (now renamed the CADTH reimbursement review) makes a non-binding funding recommendation to the Canadian provinces (except Quebec), which each then decide whether the drug will be publicly funded. We identified the determinants of funding in this process. Methods: We analyzed drugs for advanced lung (n = 15), breast (n = 8), colorectal (CRC) (n = 7), melanoma (n = 10), and neuroendocrine (NET) (n = 3) cancers undergoing the funding decision process from 2011 to 2019. Determinants of funding assessed in the model included list price, cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation. The primary outcome was the correlation between list price and time to funding (TTF: Health Canada approval to first provincial funding). Secondary outcomes included an exploratory analysis of predictors of drug funding. Results: We analyzed 43 drugs: targeted agents 72%, immunotherapy 20%, chemotherapy 7%. A total of 72% were funded in at least one province. Median TTF was 379 days (IQR 203–601). Median list price (28-day course) was CAD 8213 (IQR CAD 5391–9445). Higher list price was not correlated with TTF (correlation coefficient −0.20, p = 0.28). There was no association between list price and pCODR recommendation or the decision to fund in at least one province. A positive pCODR recommendation correlated with the provinces’ funding decisions (p < 0.001), where 89% of drugs with a positive recommendation were funded and 100% of drugs with a negative recommendation were not funded. Tumor type was predictive of TTF (p < 0.001): CRC drugs were the slowest at a median of 2541 days (IQR 702–4379), and NETs were the quickest at a median of 0 days (IQR 0–502). Cancer type predicted decision to fund in at least one province (p = 0.005), with funding for 100% of NET drugs at the high end and 29% of CRC drugs at the low end. Drug class was predictive of TTF (p = 0.01): 465 days (IQR 245–702) for targeted agents, 443 days (IQR 298–587) for chemotherapy, and 339 days (IQR 164–446) for immunotherapy. Conclusions: Determinants of drug funding included cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation but not list price. Factors other than cost were more heavily weighted in the funding decisions of cancer drugs in Canadian provinces.

Abstract The Crafts of the Modern World: Horizon Press Publishers List Price $15.00, December 31, then $17.50. Reviewed by Rose Slivka. Creative Metal Design: Reinhold Book Corporation: List Price $5.95. Reviewed by Ullrich/Klante. The Young Artist: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.: List Price $2.95. Reviewed by John Mills. The Best of Christian Rohlfs: Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc.: List Price $10.00. Reviewed by Paul Vogt. Decorative Art in Modern Interiors 1968/1969: The Viking Press Inc.: List Price $14.00. Reviewed by Ella Moody. Working With Wood: Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc.: List Price $5.95. Reviewed by Fritz Walter.

Abstract Collage, Montage, Assemblage: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: list price $8.95 Reviewed by Norman Laliberte. Enamel Painting Techniques, Praeger Publishers, Inc. list price $14.95. Reviewed by Edward Winter. Persian Miniature Painting, Dover Publications, Inc. list price $6.00. Reviewed by Laurence Binyon, J.V.S. Wilkinson and Basil Gray. Macrame Accessories. Crown Publishers, Inc. list price $4.95. Reviewed by Dona 2. Meilach. Folk Art and Folk: Artists in Hungary, Hastings House, Publishers. Reviewed by Karoly Gink and list Sandor Kiss.

List pricing and discounting in a Bertrand–Edgeworth duopoly

ObjectiveBoard examinations in undergraduate medical education are imperative for competency assessment and a standard licensure process. While the cost of attendance and mean indebtedness of medical students have been quantified, the financial burden experienced by medical students from board preparation and examination has never been quantified.Materials and methodsA total of 290 fourth-year osteopathic medical students from 38 osteopathic medical schools completed an anonymous survey that asked them to select the resources they had purchased for board preparation. Along with demographic information, respondents were asked which board examinations they had taken during their medical school education. The price for each resource was located by going to the resource website and finding the “list price” of a brand-new copy/version of that resource. If a price was not found, a current Amazon.com “list price” was utilized. These prices best approximate the maximum a student would spend per resource. Response and statistical analysis such as analysis of variance, post hoc comparison (Scheffé and Bonferronis test), and chi-square tests were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics, version 25.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY).ResultsThis study found that osteopathic medical students spent, on average, $7,499 (s.d.=$2,506) for board preparation and examination. This cost when isolated is $3,370 for the cost of taking board examinations and $4,129 for the cost of board preparation. Respondents from the West were found to spend most at $9,432, while students from the Northeast spent the least, $7.090. Additionally, non-traditional medical students, those who matriculated after the age of 30 were found to spend more than individuals who began when they were under the age of 25 or between the ages of 25-30. The two most commonly used resources for both Level 1/Step 1 and Level 2/Step 2 examinations were COMBANK and UWorld. Conclusions/relevanceThis study is the first of its kind to quantify the mean cost of board preparation and examination in undergraduate medical education at $7,499. When considering the mean indebtedness of the osteopathic graduating class of 2017-2018, 2.94% of medical education debt can be attributed to the cost of board preparation and assessments. As competitiveness for graduate medical education increases, individuals will spend more money to ensure a competitive board exam performance, a key selection factor. Stakeholders in undergraduate medical education are encouraged to further understand the interplay between medical student debt and the cost of board examinations and preparation.

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessHHS’s Proposed Drug Rebates Rule Would Raise Premiums; Benefits UnclearLinda M. RichmondLinda M. RichmondSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:14 Mar 2019https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.3b11AbstractA prescription drug rule proposed by the Trump administration would bar drugmakers from giving rebates to plans, resulting in higher premiums for Medicare Part D enrollees across the board. The ultimate impact on prices at the pharmacy counter remains unclear.The Trump administration has proposed a controversial plan aimed at lowering prescription drug prices that would put an end to the practice of drugmakers giving rebates to certain health plans and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).iStock/MJ_PrototypeThe rule would affect enrollees in Medicare Part D drug plans and lower-income individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans. If finalized as expected next year, the rule would raise monthly premiums in Medicare Part D drug plans by as much as 22 percent but would provide uncertain benefits at the pharmacy counter. Analysts say the plan would likely trickle down to the rest of the health insurance marketplace.The proposed rule would legally bar rebates that drug manufacturers now pay to health plan sponsors—and the PBMs under contract with them—driving a certain volume of sales or providing a certain market share. The rebates are based on the list price of drugs, so when prices go up, the rebates are larger.These arrangements may create a perverse incentive for drugmakers to raise their list prices—and for plans to favor these more expensive drugs—to obtain higher rebate payments, according to the proposed rule, published by the Department of Health and Human Services in the February 6 Federal Register.Drug companies announced large list price increases for 2019, by one analysis, about 6 percent per drug, according to the proposed rule. However, these price increases are not supported by inflation, increased costs of goods, or increased demand, but they instead “reflect significant distortions in the distribution chain.” Nearly every drug company reporting a price increase in January said that most or all of the increase reflected the cost of rebates being paid to health plans or their PBMs, according to a fact sheet issued by the administration.Under the current system, patients pay a share of their medication cost based on the list price of the drug at the point of sale. The health plans or their PBMs later receive rebates on those medications, but that discount is not passed along to patients.The proposed rule would end the safe harbor arrangement that shields drugmakers paying these discounts from anti-kickback statutes. The proposed rule would also establish a new safe harbor for drugmakers that choose to give rebates directly to consumers at the point of sale.“There is tremendous uncertainty about how this rule would work and how it would affect beneficiaries in terms of out-of-pocket costs and program spending,” said Juliette Cubanski, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.P.P., associate director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “This is a bold experiment, but it’s also a very risky experiment in terms of the potential impact on the prescription drug marketplace. What’s unequivocal is that everyone enrolled would see an increase in premiums.”An analysis by Milliman of the potential impact of the proposal commissioned by the administration projects premium increases of 12 percent to 22 percent per member per month. Cubanski pointed out that the proposed rule provides no guarantee that drugmakers will choose to lower list prices or provide rebates to consumers, although all patients across the board will see their premiums go up.Regardless, not all patients take rebate-eligible medications, which are typically reserved for expensive brand-name drugs that have several competing medications, Cubanski pointed out. Under the Medicare Part D plan, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anticonvulsants are part of the so-called “protected classes” drugs for which plans are required to cover all or substantially all of them. As a result, rebates for these drugs for psychiatric conditions tend to be lower, if they are offered at all.The drug rebate system is somewhat of a mystery, since discount arrangements for specific drugs are considered proprietary information that drugmakers are not required to disclose.“There’s some level of uncertainty as to whether patients would see any savings if you take away rebates for plans,” Cubanski concluded. “Because the rule does not change drugmakers’ fundamental ability to set list prices wherever they want them.”APA has been advocating to make prescription drugs affordable and accessible to those who need them and is reviewing the proposal, along with a coalition of medical organizations, and will be filing comments by the April 8 deadline.Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), applauded the administration’s proposal and said these types of reforms will especially help patients with chronic diseases who are often not benefitting from the current rebate system.“We need to ensure that the $150 billion in negotiated rebates and discounts are used to lower costs for patients at the pharmacy,” he added. ■Comments on the proposed rule, “Fraud and Abuse; Removal of Safe Harbor Protection for Rebates Involving Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Creation of New Safe Harbor Protection for Certain Point-of-Sale Reductions in Price on Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Certain Pharmacy Benefit Manager Service Fees (42 CFR 1001)” may be submitted here. ISSUES NewArchived

All four United Kingdom (UK) nations have School Food Standards (SFS) which schools and local authorities must adhere to. Since the Welsh SFS were updated in 2013(1), the UK government has updated its healthy eating guidelines according to advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)(2). The Welsh government is committed to revising their SFS to reflect the most up-to-date scientific evidence for nutrients and food. This study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively content analyse (CA) school food provision (i.e., menus and/or price lists) pan-Wales to determine the extent to which it meets the latest healthy eating government recommendations for school-aged children. Secondly, menu design was thematically analysed (TA) to ascertain the language used and design elements(3).Menus and/or price lists were collected cross-sectionally for the autumn 2023 term and 79% of the total population was sampled (n = 82/104). Welsh language documentation was translated into English via an online translation website prior to CA. The study protocol received approval from the Cardiff Metropolitan University School of Sport and Health Sciences ethics committee. The researchers developed an assessment tool inclusive of healthiness criteria based on SACN guidelines as well as the Welsh SFS and used this tool to CA and TA all 82 menus.Local authority organised primary school food provision was most likely to meet the predetermined healthiness criteria. Most secondary schools lacked fruit-based desserts (64%), red meat (95%) and milk (55%). Moreover, occasionally secondaries exceeded the allotted frequency for processed meat (11%), potatoes cooked in oil (22%) and high in fat, salt and sugar mid-morning snacks (18%). Instances were found where the healthiness criteria, identical to the current Welsh SFS, were not fulfilled. Regarding the TA of menu and/or price lists, four key themes were identified: (i) language, (ii) signalling, (iii) imagery and (iv) design. 12% menus featured the Welsh language. Descriptive language was apparent for cooking methods (‘freshly filled,’ ‘oven-baked’) or to popularise dishes (‘veggie-dawgs,’ ‘meatball wrapstar’). An array of keys and icons were employed to signal non-meat items or nutritionally balanced dishes. Logos, photos and illustrations were evident across most menus, yet the imagery could be seemingly unrelated to the school food provision. In particular, primary school menus were bright and colour was utilised to emphasise different weeks of the menu cycle. Issues around clarity were observed on secondary school price lists which could be overly long and include complex pricing structures.This study has established the current school food and drink provision pan-Wales and provides policymakers with a baseline from which the SFS may be updated and include a formal monitoring process. Improvement in the amount and clarity of information on menus could also be considered at this stage.

To what extent does pharmaceutical revenue growth depend on new medicines versus increasing prices for existing medicines? Moreover, does using list prices, as is commonly done, instead of prices net of confidential rebates offered by manufacturers, which are harder to observe, change the relative importance of the sources of revenue growth? This study uses data from SSR Health LLC to address these research questions using decomposition methods that analyze list prices, prices net of rebates, and sales for branded pharmaceutical products sold primarily through retail pharmacies. From 2009 to 2019, retail pharmaceutical revenue growth was primarily driven by new products rather than by price increases on existing products. Failing to account for confidential rebates creates a more prominent role for price increases in explaining revenue growth, because list price inflation during this period was 10.9%, whereas net price inflation was 3.3%. Policies that restrict price growth on existing medicines likely need to be coupled with policies that reduce launch prices to have a meaningful long-term impact on pharmaceutical revenue growth. Using pharmaceutical list prices is often an inadequate approximation for net prices because the role of rebates has increased and varies by drug class.

We examine the use (and non-use) of list price information in the process of marketing commercial real estate. While housing market research suggests that list prices can serve as a strong anchor and/or signal, list price information is included in less than one-third of the commercial property sales and is less likely to be included as part of the sellers’ offering information for larger and more complex properties. Given the potentially powerful effect of list prices (first offers) on outcomes, the non-use of list price information is a puzzle. We speculate that the limited use of list prices may be due to the sellers’ interests in both maintaining their informational advantage and not truncating higher than expected offers, especially during periods of economic growth or with more complex properties. Using a two-stage selection correction model, we find that office properties which provide list price information are, on average, associated with lower price outcomes (ceteris paribus) and that these outcomes vary by price cohort and economic condition. It is important to note, however, that while these findings identify a correlation, they do not necessarily imply causation. Our results support the notion that asymmetric information and information signaling play a dominant role in explaining the sellers’ strategic non-use of list price information in the commercial real estate market and that the signaling effect is more pronounced in higher priced properties and during periods of strong economic growth.

This article examines the usefulness of listing prices as leading indicators of house values and as predictors of the direction of housing markets. With Multiple Listing Service data from a large metropolitan area, we create two price indexes, using first listing price and then selling price as the dependent variable in the hedonic regressions. The market is then geographically and categorically segmented, and Granger causality tests are performed to analyze the leading aspect of list prices in the list price-sales price relationship. We find that different segments of the market perform quite differently over the time period of our study, suggesting that for data-based appraisal purposes care is needed in determining the manner and level of aggregation. We also find, however, that market list prices continue to convey important information about subsequent selling prices in most market segments

PALLIATIVE CARE PERSPECTIVES. James L. Hallenbeck, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, 256 pages paperbound, List Price $24.95, ISBN: 0-19-516578-0. Reviewed by Lise K. Langston.GERIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE. Edited by R. Sean Morrison and Diane E. Meier, New York Oxford University Press, 2003, xxx plus 264 pages hardbound, List price: $79.95, ISBN: 0-19-514191-1. Reviewed by Patricia H. Berry.THE TRUTH ABOUT CHRONIC PAIN: PATIENTS AND PROFESSIONALS ON HOW TO FACE IT, UNDERSTAND IT, OVERCOME IT. Arthur Rosenfeld, NY Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Books Groups, 2003, Hardcover, List Price: $25.00, ISBN: 0-465-07138-4. Reviewed by Vijay Joish.

The list prices of analogue insulin medicines in the United States have soared during the past decade. In the wake of high-profile cases of prescription medicine “price-gouging”, such as Mylan’s EpiPen and Turing-acquired Daraprim, actors across the insulin supply chain are today facing growing scrutiny from US lawmakers and the wider public. For the most part, however, the role of shareholders in the insulin supply chain has been overlooked. This paper considers the relationship between profits realized from higher insulin list prices, pharmaceutical innovation, and the financial structures of the three dominant insulin manufacturing companies, which set list prices. It shows that despite claims to the contrary, insulin manufacturers extracted vast profits from the sale of insulin products in the period 2009-2018, as insulin list prices rose. Distributions to the company shareholders in the form of cash dividends and share repurchases totaled $122 billion over this period. The paper also considers the role of other actors in the insulin supply chain, such as pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), in the determination of list prices. The data and analysis presented in the paper indicates that financialization could be considered in tension with not only the development of new drugs that will be available to patients in the future, but also the affordability of products that already exist today.

INTRODUCTION This study will explore the issue of pricing opacity associated with prices paid by academic libraries that have recently unbundled from the Elsevier Big Deal journal package. Additionally, this study will provide metrics for assessing the fair market value (FMV) of unbundled journal packages. The pricing metrics will assist academic libraries in negotiations of subscription and open access agreements. METHODS Pricing information was gathered from five academic libraries. The data was analyzed to arrive at two key metrics (adjustment from list price and the average cost per journal) for establishing comparables, i.e., prices paid by similarly sized institutions, to assess the collective FMVs for unbundled Elsevier journal packages. RESULTS &amp;amp; DISCUSSION The study results show that significant variations existed in the way institutions were charged for content. Additionally, the comparables show wide variations among institutions when measured by the overall adjustment from list price and the average cost per journal. CONCLUSION The pricing metrics developed in this study, adjustment from list price (ALP) and average cost per journal (ACJ), will help libraries assess their final net prices for individual journal subscriptions. The results will be useful to administrators, collection development personnel, and negotiating teams in understanding the prices paid by other institutions for unbundled journal packages to determine FMVs.

ASGE Technology Status Evaluation Report: wireless esophageal pH monitoring system