[Reporter's View]Unifying the price of pneumococcal vaccines

The interesting equation of the unification of the price of the Pneumococcal Vaccine

The National Immunization Program (NIP) is the ideal “goal” for vaccine-holding pharmaceutical companies.

 

This is because the government's policy of purchasing vaccines and providing them free of charge to the public, above all, ensures stable sales.

 

Therefore, when the government announces that it has selected a preventive vaccine for a specific disease for NIP, companies with relevant vaccines begin to compete fiercely.

 

Companies deploy various strategies to increase market share within the set market as well as to be selected for NIP.

 

The National Immunization Program (NIP) of pneumococcal vaccines has recently been in the spotlight.

 

The new addition of 'Prevnar 20' from Pfizer Korea, the original leader in the market, has stirred the battle between multinational pharmaceutical companies' premium vaccines.

 

Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine pipeline, which ranges from Prevnar and Prevnar 13, has virtually dominated Korea’s market.

 

In this market, a new 15-valent vaccine, MSD's Vaxneuvance, joined as a new player and driven change, so Pfizer is aiming for the throne again with its new 20-valent vaccine.

 

At the core of the claim of the “superiority” of these new vaccines is serotype coverage.

 

If 13 serotypes are covered, it is called a 13-valent vaccine; if it covers 15 it is a 15-valent, and 20 a 20-valent vaccine.

 

The general perception is that a vaccine that covers more serotypes has a relatively higher level of preventive power.

 

However, a higher serotype coverage does not necessarily mean better preventive power.

 

However, the fact that a product “covers more serotypes” to prevent the same disease resonates with the consumers.

 

In the NIP market, the vaccine with the highest price has always been the winner.

 

However, there has been an interesting change in the stance of pharmaceutical companies entering the NIP with their pneumococcal vaccines.

 

The companies have decided to supply their newly developed products at the same price as their existing vaccines.

 

This is called price unification.

 

The reason why the change is interesting is this:  When Prevnar 13 was introduced to the NIP, Pfizer insisted on differentiating it from its strong competitor, GSK Korea's 10-valent vaccine ‘Synflorix,' and demanded a dual pricing system, which was implemented.

 

The same goes for MSD.

 

This company also requested a different price from GSK's 'Gardasil' and ‘Cervarix,' which are quadrivalent vaccines, when they entered the NIP for HPV vaccines.

 

This is called the dualization of prices.

 

The dualization of prices means the government's discrimination in the purchase price of NIP vaccines.

 

If the prices of the 2 vaccines granted by the government are different even though they are free vaccines, the majority will choose to take the higher-priced option.

 

The result was clear.

 

However, for some reason, neither MSD, when it entered the market with its 15-valent vaccine, at a time when the 13-valent vaccine was the best, nor Pfizer, when it launched its 20-valent vaccine, demanded a price differentiation for their more serotype coverage.

 

Both pharmaceutical companies chose to standardize their prices.

 

Even though they have pride in their follow-up products.

 

This is a reflection of the correct market logic.

 

The situation in the pneumococcal vaccine market is different from the time when there was a price dualization.

 

Rather than taking the time to raise the price of both the 15-valent and 20-valent vaccines, the companies decided to enter the market as quickly as possible.

 

It is only natural for a company to pursue profit.

 

The strategy may vary depending on the strategic decision to attract sales by competing with competing products.

 

Before, the strategy was ‘dualization of price,' but now it is 'unification.' However, the message of 'for the health of the people' does not seem to be the reasoning behind the companies’ choice of unifying the price.