Data without context

The 11 OECD comparable countries KFF used for its analysis

With the recent publishing of the ten IPAY 2026 Medicare negotiated drug prices, the Kaiser Family Foundation published an international price index comparison with the new Medicare prices. (source: KFF) A lot is being said about the negotiated prices exceeding all average brand prices, and the negotiated prices exceeding all but one brand (Stelara) in one country (Germany).

Buried within the report, though, is the necessary context by which to understand the comparison in full:

“In most other countries included in this analysis, the government is more involved in making coverage determinations and setting universal drug prices across a broad array of drugs.” (Tevis, et. al.)

While the complexities of the United States healthcare system - a mix of public, private, for- and not-for-profit entities - and how pharmaceuticals make it to US consumers is largely a black box to the average American, it’s important to differentiate the way healthcare is delivered in the 11 selected OECD countries in the analysis. All countries boast a “universal” healthcare system with near 100% citizen coverage through government sponsored healthcare, compared to 40% government sponsored coverage in the United States (source: OECD). There are some countries that require private as well as public funds, such as Australia, Belgium, and Canada. However, when it comes to valuing the healthcare systems - through the heuristic of “avoidable deaths per 100,000 inhabitants” - the average of the comparator countries outperform the United States by a factor of 2:1 (average of 11 OECD countries with 170 deaths compared to the US at 369 deaths per 100,000). (source: OECD)

Without the essential context of how healthcare is administered among the 12 countries in KFF’s study, the flashy headline comparing the Medicare negotiated products to international prices is moot. Data without context is just information; knowledge is created in the synthesis.