The company has developed a genuinely more convenient treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus: a once daily oral formulation with high efficacy, in a disease whose treatment market went generic years ago. It now has to sell in Europe, where prices sit far below the US. In Germany the achievable price is roughly five times lower than the US net price.
This fictional case uses illustrative clinical, pricing, access and commercial assumptions to demonstrate the framework. Outputs have not been independently validated and should not be interpreted as formal pricing or launch recommendations.
€61,500
Per patient per year, illustrative assumption
Approximately €13,500
Illustrative achievable net price per patient per year, approximately 4.5 times below the illustrative US net price
€1,100
The comparator payers will name, illustrative assumption
The comparator costs under 1,200 EUR a year, so almost the entire price sits on incremental value. That is the whole problem: the price is not defended by the cost of the alternative, it is defended by the evidence and by pricing governance.
Illustrative price defensibility
Moderate (58/100)
Weighted across six pillars
Illustrative eligible patients in Europe
19,700
Eight priority markets
Illustrative recommended net corridor
€11,900
Per patient per year, blended
Illustrative five-year European revenue
151m EUR
Tolerant markets first, larger markets later
1. Challenge and shape the comparator framework before negotiating price
In this illustrative case the most influential lever may be what the price is compared against, rather than the number itself. Framing against the treated refractory pathway, including biologics, hospital care and flare management, is typically worth exploring alongside the 1,100 EUR generic comparator.
2. Translate convenience into measurable clinical and economic value
European payers tend to respond to quantified effects rather than convenience described as a benefit. Avoided infusion visits, reduced monitoring, improved adherence and fewer flares could each be modelled and evidenced early, which is the assumption used here.
3. Manage national pricing decisions within a coordinated European corridor
Six of the eight illustrative priority markets reference the others. In this scenario a single list price with confidential net prices helps a premium hold, while a visible discount tends to propagate within about two cycles.
4. Consider reference-pricing influence alongside market size when sequencing launches
One illustrative sequence enters Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK first to build a price record and real world data, then approaches Germany and France, and holds Spain and Poland until a confidential net price is available.
5. Consider delaying markets where wider corridor impact exceeds local value
Where the modelled achievable net price sits below the corridor floor and a market is heavily referenced, delayed entry may protect more revenue elsewhere than the market itself would contribute in this illustration.
Product
Velantra (fictional), belimizib
Indication
Moderate to severe SLE with active renal or musculoskeletal involvement
Formulation
Oral, once daily
Efficacy
SRI-4 response 62 percent versus 38 percent on standard of care at week 52
Convenience
Once daily tablet replacing an infusion or injection regimen, no monitoring visits beyond routine bloods
Standard of care
Generic mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine, plus oral corticosteroids
Can we defend a price
A weighted six pillar assessment showing which pillars limit the price and what evidence moves them.
What is each market worth
Eight markets scored on achievable price, volume, speed to reimbursement, and the damage their price does elsewhere.
Which strategy to pick
A reference price cascade simulator and four costed scenarios with a recommended choice and a 30 month playbook.