Tackling medicine shortages during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Compilation of governmental policy measures and developments in 38 countries

In response to increasing shortages of medicines, governments have implemented legislative and non-legislative policy measures. This study aimed to map these policies across high-income countries in Europe and beyond as of 2023 and to analyse developments in governmental approaches since the beginning of the pandemic. Information was collated from 38 countries (33 European countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel and Saudi Arabia) based on a survey conducted with public authorities involved in the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) network in 2023. 34 countries requested pharmaceutical companies to notify national registers of upcoming shortages and 20 countries obliged manufacturers and/or wholesalers to stock supply reserves of critically needed medicines. Further common measures included export bans for defined medicines (18 countries), regulatory measures to facilitate import and use of alternative medicines (35 countries) and multi-stakeholder coordination (28 countries). While the legislation of 26 countries allows imposing sanctions, particularly for non-compliance to reporting requirements, fines were rather rarely imposed. Since 2022, at least 18 countries provided financial incentives, usually in the form of price increases of some off-patent medicines. Overall, several policies to address medicine shortages were taken in recent years, in some countries as part of a comprehensive package (e.g., Australia, Germany). Further initiatives to secure medicine supply in a sustainable manner were being prepared or discussed.

Innovations in pharmaceutical policies and learnings for sustainable access to affordable medicines

Sustainable access to affordable medicines remains a public health issue globally, including for high-income countries. To foster the debate on avenues for the future, the fifth PPRI Conference held in Vienna on 25 and 26 April 2024 will offer a forum for the debate on innovating pharmaceutical policymaking to develop and implement futureproof policy options, which are able to address current and future challenges. The Conference invites a broad audience of stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, payers, patients, industry and health professionals. The conference topics are organised in three strands: Strand 1 on 'Local challenges, global learnings' aims to contribute to lively discussions on the implementation of pharmaceutical policies across the globe. Best-practice examples will be presented, supplemented by case studies of less effective policies which can offer rich learnings. Strand 2 on 'Strengthening the evidence base' is the place for presentations and discussions on topics such as health technology assessments, managed entry agreements and real-world data. Strand 3 'Futureproofing pharmaceutical policies' is particularly dedicated to explore innovation in policymaking to achieve sustainable access to affordable medicines.

Lessons Learned from Europe

This paper reviews the main pricing policies in Latin American countries, discussing their shortcomings. It also gives an overview of the most common pricing and reimbursement policies in Europe and describes in detail three well-established approaches - international price referencing, value-based pricing, including setting up of health technology assessment, and generic and biosimilar policies - building on country examples.

Barriers and Facilitators in Pricing and Funding Policies of European Countries That Impact the Use of Point-of-Care Diagnostics for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections in Outpatient Practices

Antimicrobial resistance is a major global health threat, which is increased by the irrational use of antibiotics, for example, in the treatment of respiratory tract infections in community care. By using rapid point-of-care diagnostics, overuse can be avoided. However, the diagnostic tests are rarely used in most European countries. We mapped potential barriers and facilitators in health technology assessment (HTA), pricing, and funding policies related to the use of rapid diagnostics in patients with community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections. Expert interviews were conducted with representatives of public authorities from five European case study countries: Austria, Estonia, France, Poland, and Sweden. Barriers to the HTA process include the lack of evidence and limited transferability of methods established for medicines to diagnostics. There was no price regulation for the studied diagnostics in the case study countries, but prices were usually indirectly determined via procurement. The lack of price regulation and weak purchasing power due to regional procurement processes were mentioned as pricing-related barriers. Regarding funding, coverage (reimbursement) of the diagnostic tests and the optimized remuneration of physicians in their use were mentioned as facilitators. There is potential to strengthen peri-launch policies, as optimized policies may promote the uptake of POCT.

Shortages of Medicines to Treat COVID-19 Symptoms during the First Wave and Fourth Wave: Analysis of Notifications Reported to Registers in Austria, Italy, and Spain

The study aimed to investigate medicine shortages of critical relevance in the pandemic. A total of 487 active substances for the treatment of COVID-19-related symptoms and therapeutically similar medicines were reviewed as to whether or not a shortage had been notified in Austria, Italy, and Spain for February 2020, March 2020, April 2020 (first wave of the pandemic), and, in comparison, in November 2021 (fourth wave). Publicly accessible shortage registers managed by the national regulatory authorities were consulted. For 48 active substances, a shortage was notified for at least one of the study months, mostly March and April 2020. Out of these 48 active substances, 30 had been explicitly recommended as COVID-19 therapy options. A total of 71% of the active substances with notified shortage concerned medicines labeled as essential by the World Health Organization. During the first wave, Spain and Italy had higher numbers of shortage notifications for the product sample, in terms of active substances as well as medicine presentations, than Austria. In November 2021, the number of shortage notifications for the studied substances reached lower levels in Austria and Spain. The study showed an increase in shortage notifications for COVID-19-relevant medicines in the first months of the pandemic.

Interface policies bridging outpatient and hospital sectors in Europe: can cross-sectorial collaboration in reimbursement and procurement improve access to affordable medicines?

INTRODUCTION

Pharmaceutical systems are frequently characterized by fragmentation, and competences for outpatient and inpatient sectors sit with different authorities, payers, and purchasers. This fragmentation of responsibilities can incentivize shifting expensive therapies and thus patients from one sector to the other.

AREAS COVERED

Reimbursement and procurement policies in Europe addressing unwanted consequences of this fragmentation were identified through literature reviews and surveys with policy-makers. Good practice examples include cross-sectorial reimbursement lists managed by committees with representatives from the outpatient and hospital sectors, specific funding mechanisms, joint procurement involving purchasers from both sectors, actions against procurement contracts prohibiting generic competition, and an extension of Health Technology Assessment to the hospital sector.

EXPERT OPINION

Recognizing fragmentation as a major challenge for pharmaceutical systems, policy-makers in some countries reacted by implementing policies to support cross-sectorial collaboration. However, only a handful of good practice examples exist for reimbursement and procurement policies in Europe. Though robust evaluations are lacking, there are indications that pharmaceutical policies which ensure collaboration at the interface of the outpatient and inpatient sectors would likely result in efficiency gains and better use of public budgets and may serve as lever to improve access to medicines.

Marketing authorisation and pricing of FDA-approved cancer drugs in Brazil: a retrospective analysis

Background

Most cancer drugs enter the US market first. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of new cancer drugs may influence regulatory decisions in other settings. The study examined whether characteristics of available evidence at FDA approval influenced time-to-marketing authorisation (MA) in Brazil, and price differences between the two countries.

Methods

All new FDA-approved cancer drugs from 2010 to 2019 were matched to drugs with MA and prices approved in Brazil by December 2020. Characteristics of main studies, availability of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overall survival (OS) benefit, added therapeutic benefit, and prices were compared.

Findings

Fifty-six FDA-approved cancer drugs with matching indications received a MA at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) after a median of 522 days following US approval (IQR: 351-932). Earlier authorisation in Brazil was associated with availability of RCT (median: 506 vs 760 days, p = 0.031) and evidence of OS benefit (390 vs 543 days, p = 0.019) at FDA approval. At Brazilian marketing authorisation, a greater proportion of cancer drugs had main RCTs (75% vs 60.7%) and OS benefit (42.9% vs 21.4%) than that in the US. Twenty-eight (50%) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over drugs for the same indication in Brazil. Median approved prices of new cancer drugs were 12.9% lower in Brazil compared to the US (adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity). However, for drugs with added therapeutic benefit median prices were 5.9% higher in Brazil compared to the US, while 17.9% lower for those without added benefit.

Interpretation

High-quality clinical evidence accelerated the availability of cancer medicines in Brazil. The combination of marketing and pricing authorisation in Brazil may favour the approval of cancer drugs with better supporting evidence, and more meaningful clinical benefit albeit with variable degree of success in achieving lower prices compared to the US.

Funding

None.

How do hospital characteristics and ties relate to the uptake of second-generation biosimilars? A longitudinal analysis of Portuguese NHS hospitals, 2015-2021

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on within-country discrepancies in biosimilar uptake. This study analyzes differences in timing and diffusion of biosimilar uptake across Portuguese NHS hospitals and explores possible determinants.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed publicly accessible consumption data of originator biologic and biosimilar drugs for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, by hospital and month for the years 2015-2021 (N = 9,467). We modeled the time to biosimilar adoption using survival regression models and the share of biosimilar consumption using generalized estimated equations with random hospital effects.

RESULTS

Academic hospitals were characterized by a quicker uptake of adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars but lower shares for other drugs. A higher total consumption of biologics was related to a lower share of biosimilar uptake. A stronger participation in randomized controlled trials was linked to higher biosimilar shares and quicker uptake, except for rituximab. If all NHS hospitals had biosimilar shares equal to the highest ones, potential annual savings could reach 13.9 million euros.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest a need for capacity-building on biosimilar prescribing, including for doctors of academic hospitals and those working in settings where high biosimilar use would be expected.

Design of value-added tax on medicines in 41 European countries

Background

Recently, among others due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, European countries have been experiencing rising inflation. Value-added taxes (VAT) on essential goods have gained public attention, and abolishing VAT for these goods has been discussed as a measure to prevent poverty and inequities. The study aims to investigate the relevance of value-added tax on medicines in European countries.

Methods

We collated information on medicines-specific and standard VAT rates in 41 countries of the WHO European Region (all 27 European Union Member States, Albania, Armenia, Iceland, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Kosovo, Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom). Data were reviewed from literature and were validated by national public authorities.

Results

In three countries (Albania, Kazakhstan and Malta), all medicines are exempt from VAT. 28 of the 38 countries with VAT on medicines impose a single VAT rate on all medicines, and in most of these countries (21 countries) the medicines-related VAT is lower than the standard VAT rate. Ten countries have differentiated VAT rates: In Ireland, Kyrgyzstan, Sweden and the UK defined medicines (e.g. oral medicines, prescription-only medicines) are exempt from VAT, whereas for the other medicines the standard VAT rate applies; six further countries have a lower VAT rate for some medicines (e.g. heparins, blood products, contraceptives or reimbursed medicines in general) compared to the remaining medicines, whose VAT rate equal the standard rate or is lower.

Conclusions

Some European countries apply specific mechanisms (exemptions, reduced rates) regarding the VAT for defined or all medicines. This may act as a protective measure for patients in case of non-reimbursed medicines and help public payers to ensure financial sustainability to funded medicines. Further medicines-specific research is needed to understand the impact of inflation.

Key messages

• Value-added tax is a relevant component of medicine prices.

• Lowering or abolishing the VAT on medicines can be an important policy espeically when patients pay out-of-pocket.

Centralised Pharmaceutical Procurement: Learnings from Six European Countries

Several European countries have introduced centralised procurement for all or some medicines. This article comparatively describes key features of national centralised pharmaceutical procurement (CPP) systems of six European countries (Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Norway and Portugal). Additionally, it aims to identify benefits, challenges and prerequisites for successful CPP, with a view to offering learnings for other countries. Information was collected based on literature and interviews with national procurement experts. While all countries studied established a designated procurement entity, other institutional and organisational features of the CPP systems vary across the countries. All CPP systems apply a mix of procurement procedures depending on the type of medicine (mainly tendering and negotiations). Reported benefits of CPP include lower purchase prices, stronger bargaining power of the public purchasers, enhanced transparency and governance, improved equity, and eventually improved access to medicines. Challenges that are to be met particularly in the starting phase are opposition of some users and the management of stakeholders with different expectations. Issues such as limited competition and non-availability of medicines may continue in the CPP setting. Compliance with good procurement principles is indispensable for any procurement, including CPP. Further prerequisites for successful CPP include a consistent, comprehensive and regularly updated procurement strategy, sufficient funding and appropriate staffing of the procurement entity, efficient processes including contract management and logistics, data collection and monitoring as well as interaction with users and suppliers.

"Ready for the future?" - Status of national and cross-country horizon scanning systems for medicines in European countries

Background: Horizon scanning aims to systematically identify upcoming health technologies and thus allows policy-makers to be better prepared for the entry of new medicines with possibly high price tags into the national health system. The aim of this study is to survey the existence of national and cross-national horizon scanning systems for medicines in European countries.

Methods: Experts working in public authorities (members of the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information/PPRI network) in the WHO European region participated in surveys in 2014 and 2019 and informed about the status of horizon scanning in their country (response rate: 14 and 44 countries, respectively). Identified advanced horizon scanning systems as of 2019 were further investigated based on a literature review.

Results: In 2019, six countries (Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported systematic use of horizon scanning for some new medicines, and four countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland) had some horizon scanning activities ongoing. No systematic use of horizon scanning was reported from the remaining 34 countries. The findings of the survey undertaken five years earlier were similar, with even fewer systems in place. A recent development is the establishment of cross-country initiatives of governments that aim, among others, to jointly perform horizon scanning; the International Horizon Scanning Initiative (IHSI) initiated by the Beneluxa collaboration is the most advanced undertaking in this respect. Countries with systematic use tend to have horizon scanning fully integrated in a system for the management of new medicines, and they use horizon scanning outcomes to inform decisions as to whether or not a Health Technology Assessment will be conducted and price negotiations be started. Differences between existing horizon scanning systems mainly concern the timings of scanning and reporting, the sources for the inputs and the accessibility of the findings.

Conclusion: There appears to be a discrepancy between the perceived importance of horizon scanning based on some eye-opening examples in the past and its actual implementation in European health systems. The latter is likely attributable to horizon scanning being resource-intensive. The establishment of new national and international horizon scanning systems offers the opportunity to investigate their impact on sustainable access to affordable medicines from the start.

Purchasing medicines for the public sector: Evaluation of the performance of centralised procurement in Portugal

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate centralised procurement of medicines (CPM) in Portugal.

METHODS

Data were collected through different methods, including a review of the literature and (procurement) documents and an analysis of selected bids. Thirty-seven face-to-face interviews with representatives of public authorities, users (hospitals and regional health administrations), patient associations and pharmaceutical industry were held in Portugal in Q1/2020.

RESULTS

CPM has contributed to improved transparency in processes and governance, to increased equity in access to medicines across the country and to lower workload for some users. The findings of the impact on medicine prices and availability are mixed. The benefits of CPM are undermined by some gaps: Lengthy, bureaucratic processes have resulted in delayed availability of medicines at the beginning of a year and in coping strategies of hospitals such as parallel individual procurements. The list of active ingredients under CPM has not been updated since 2016. The procurement agency does not routinely perform market consultations. Key performance indicators for CPM are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Portuguese policy-makers are urged to develop an updated procurement strategy to provide guidance and clarity on the objectives of CPM, the role of the procurement agency and further authorities and key performance indicators.

Comparison of Prices and Affordability of Cancer Medicines in 16 Countries in Europe and Latin America

BACKGROUND

There are concerns that high prices of cancer medicines may limit patient access. Since information on prices for cancer medicines and their impact on affordability is lacking for several countries, particularly for lower income countries, this study surveys prices of originator cancer medicines in Europe and Latin America and assesses their affordability.

METHODS

For 19 cancer medicines, public procurement and ex-factory prices, as of 2017, were surveyed in five Latin American (LATAM) countries (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) and 11 European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Price data (public procurement prices in LATAM and ex-factory prices in Europe) in US dollar purchasing power parities (PPP) were analyzed per defined daily dose. Affordability was measured by setting medicines prices in relation to national minimum wages.

RESULTS

The prices of cancer medicines varied considerably between countries. In European countries with higher levels of income, PPP-adjusted prices tended to be lower than in European countries of lower income and LATAM countries. Except for one medicine, all surveyed medicines were considered unaffordable in most countries. In European countries of lower income and LATAM countries, more than 15 days' worth of minimum wages would be required by a worker to purchase one defined daily dose of several of the studied medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prices and large unaffordability of cancer medicines call for strengthening pricing policies with the aim of ensuring affordable treatment in cancer care.

European collaborations on medicine and vaccine procurement

To ensure equitable access to medicines and vaccines, organizational efforts and purchase volumes have been pooled in joint procurements and negotiations for decades in some regions of the world, as well as globally through supranational procurement mechanisms. In Europe, countries started to collaborate on procurement and negotiations recently when it became increasingly difficult to ensure access to high-priced medicines, even in high-income countries. Two European country collaborations (the Nordic Pharmaceutical Forum and the Baltic Procurement Initiative) have successfully concluded at least one joint tender process for medicines and vaccines and the Beneluxa Initiative has concluded its first successful joint price negotiation. This article describes the experiences of these country collaborations. Challenges observed included: legal barriers; institutional and organizational differences between health-care systems in member countries; and the risk that suppliers will be reluctant to cooperate with country collaborations. Although these collaborations helped improve access to medicines and vaccines for the countries involved, in situations such as a global health crisis, larger-scale, more-inclusive initiatives are needed. In the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) initiative established a global procurement mechanism to ensure the equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines globally. Despite differences in organization and scale, the European country collaborations and COVAX have some similarities: (i) their success depends on the increased purchasing power associated with pooled order volumes; (ii) expert knowledge and previous procurement experience is pooled; (iii) they perform other collaborative activities that go beyond procurement alone; and (iv) they actively involve external partners and stakeholders.

Policies to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars in European Countries and Their Potential Impact on Pharmaceutical Expenditure

Introduction: Biosimilar medicines are considered promising alternatives to new biologicals with high price tags. The extent of savings resulting from biosimilar use depends on their price and uptake, which are largely shaped by pricing, reimbursement, and demand-side policies. This article informs about different policy measures employed by European countries to design the biologicals market and explores potential savings from the increased use of biosimilar medicines in Germany. Methods: Policy measures that target the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines were identified based on a prefilled questionnaire survey with public authorities in 16 European countries, who were the members of the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information network (July 2020). Potential savings that could have been generated in Germany if different measures identified in the surveyed countries had been implemented were calculated for six publicly funded biological molecules. Price data of the Pharma Price Information service and German consumption data for 2018 were used for the calculation of five scenarios. Results: Several countries use a price link policy, setting the biosimilar price as a percentage of the price of the reference biological. Also lowering the price of the reference biological upon market entry of a biosimilar is less frequently used. While tendering of biosimilar medicines in the inpatient setting is the norm, it is rarely employed for biosimilars in outpatient use. Reference price systems and INN prescribing of medicines are the commonly used policy measures in the off-patent market, but some countries define exemptions for biologicals. Substituting biosimilars at the pharmacy level is rather an exception. Potential savings in Germany ranged from 5% (simple price link) to 55% (prices at the level of other countries) for the six studied molecules. Conclusion: Despite some differences, there are discernible tendencies across European countries with regard to their applications of certain policy measures targeting the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines. The potential for savings of some of these policies was clearly demonstrated. Monitoring and evaluation of these rather recent measures is key for obtaining a more comprehensive picture of their impact.

Addressing the medicines access challenge through balance, evidence, collaboration and transparency: key take-away lessons of the 4th PPRI Conference

The 4th PPRI Conference, held in Vienna in October 2019, addressed issues related to equitable and affordable access to medicines. A multi-stakeholder audience from around the globe discussed solutions and best practice models for current challenges such as high-priced medicines, limitations of current pricing and reimbursement policies and tight budgets for health technologies. A multi-faceted approach (so-called balance, evidence, collaboration and transparency/BECT strategy) was also discussed. This includes an improved balance of different interests and policy areas, generation of relevant evidence, collaboration between countries and stakeholders, and transparency, and was considered as the most promising pathway for the future.

How to address medicines shortages: Findings from a cross-sectional study of 24 countries

Shortages of medicines have become a major public health challenge. The aim of this study was to survey national measures to manage and combat these shortages. A questionnaire survey was conducted with public authorities involved in the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) network. Reponses relating to measures as of March / April 2020 were received from 24 countries (22 European countries, Canada and Israel). In 20 countries, manufacturers are requested to notify - usually on an obligatory basis - upcoming and existing shortages, which are recorded in a register. Further measures include a regular dialogue with relevant stakeholders (18 countries), financial sanctions for manufacturers in cases of non-supply and/or non-compliance with reporting or stocking requirements (15 countries) and simplified regulatory procedures (20 countries). For defined medicines, supply reserves have been established (14 countries), and legal provisions allow the issuing of export bans (10 countries). Some measures have been introduced since the end of 2019 and countries are planning and discussing further action. While governments reacted by taking national measures, the COVID-19 crisis might serve as an opportunity to join forces in cross-country collaboration and develop joint (e.g. European) solutions to address the shortage issue in a sustainable manner. A practical first step could be to work on a harmonisation of the national registers.

Impact of changes in the methodology of external price referencing on medicine prices: discrete-event simulation

BACKGROUND

Several governments apply the policy of external price referencing (EPR), which considers the prices of a medicine in one or more other countries for the purpose of setting the price in the own country. Different methodological choices can be taken to design EPR. The study aimed to analyse whether, or not, and how changes in the methodology of EPR can impact medicine prices.

METHODS

The real-life EPR methodology as of Q1/2015 was surveyed in all European Union Member States (where applicable), Iceland, Norway and Switzerland through a questionnaire responded by national pricing authorities. Different scenarios were developed related to the parameters of the EPR methodology. Discrete-event simulations of fictitious prices in the 28 countries of the study that had EPR were run over 10 years. The continuation of the real-life EPR methodology in the countries as surveyed in 2015, without any change, served as base case.

RESULTS

In most scenarios, after 10 years, medicine prices in all or most surveyed countries were-sometimes considerably-lower than in the base case scenario. But in a few scenarios medicine prices increased in some countries. Consideration of discounts (an assumed 20% discount in five large economies and the mandatory discount in Germany, Greece and Ireland) and determining the reference price based on the lowest price in the country basket would result in higher price reductions (on average - 47.2% and - 34.2% compared to the base case). An adjustment of medicine price data of the reference countries by purchasing power parities would lead to higher prices in some more affluent countries (e.g. Switzerland, Norway) and lower prices in lower-income economies (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland). Regular price revisions and changes in the basket of reference countries would also impact medicine prices, however to a lesser extent.

CONCLUSIONS

EPR has some potential for cost-containment. Medicine prices could be decreased if certain parameters of the EPR methodology were changed. If public payers aim to apply EPR to keep medicine prices at more affordable levels, they are encouraged to explore the cost-containment potential of this policy by taking appropriate methodological choices in the EPR design.

Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature

Background and objective

Little is known about how much public payers spend on orphan medicines. This study aimed at identifying information on orphan medicine expenditure incurred by public payers that was published in literature globally and at possibly synthesising their shares as portion of the total pharmaceutical expenditure.

Methods

A literature review was undertaken using Medline, the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts of potentially qualifying studies were reviewed for inclusion. Included articles were analysed, and bibliometric parameters as well as public expenditure data on orphan medicines were retrieved.

Results

Six hundred forty three articles excluding duplicates were identified. After screening of the abstracts and a review of the full texts, 13 articles qualified for in-depth analysis.The 13 selected articles on orphan pharmaceutical expenditure were published between 2010 and 2018. Survey periods varied between 1 year and 12 years. One publication included 22 countries but the majority of the studies were related to a single country. Expenditure data was available in five of the 13 articles, and eight articles used 'expenditure proxies' such as sales data. Spending data had been sourced from public institutions (4 studies), private providers (5 studies) and a combination of both (3 studies, no information on data source in 1 study). In all included studies, secondary data were analysed. Reported expenditure shares for orphan medicines in relation to total pharmaceutical spend was frequently below 3%. Countries with higher shares included the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and Bulgaria-the latter reporting spending on orphan medicines as high as 9%.

Conclusions

A low number of studies that informed about pharmaceutical spending on orphan medicines was published, thereof only a few explicitly analysed expenditure data of public payers. A conclusive synthesis of public spending on orphan medicines is a challenge given to the diversity in methodologies to measure expenditure. There is a need for further research to survey primary data of public spending for orphan medicines, based on a sound methodology to measure these data and to compare them internationally.

The impact of managed entry agreements on pharmaceutical prices

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) have been used for several years, with the aim of curbing the growth of pharmaceutical expenditure and enhancing patient access to innovation. Yet, much remains to be understood about their economic implications. This paper studies the impact of MEAs on list prices, that is, prices before the deduction of any discount. Using a theoretical model, we show that, under most price setting regimes, the introduction of an MEA leads to a higher list price. This is confirmed by our empirical analysis of a sample of 156 medicines in six countries, providing a conservative estimate of the increase in price due to the MEA of 5.9%. A relevant policy implication is that payers may overestimate the financial gains that can be achieved through this  tool.

Measures to manage, reduce and prevent medicines shortages in European countries in 2020

Background

Several countries have seen an increase in medicines shortages that constitute a major public health threat as they can negatively impact the health outcomes of patients. The study aims to survey measures that European countries apply or consider introducing to address medicines shortages.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to the public authorities, as involved in the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) network, in 47 countries, thereof 44 countries of the WHO European region. Respondents were asked to report measures in place or being discussed as of the first quarter of 2020.

Results

Preliminary data from 8 countries (Albania, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden; further responses are expected) show that national registers to which manufacturers notify, usually on a mandatory basis, upcoming and existing shortages (including end dates and causes in some countries) are common (all countries but Albania). Medicine reserve supplies that have to be kept for defined medicines exist in Albania and Finland; they are being established the Netherlands and are under discussion in Germany and Sweden. Finland and Italy allow issuing export bans for targeted medicines; this possibility is before implementation in Austria, was planned and then withdrawn in Romania and is under discussion in the other countries (except Albania). Further measures include simplified import permits (with patient information leaflets in foreign language), working groups with relevant stakeholders and financial sanctions for manufacturers in case of non-supply.

Conclusions

Governments have been reacting to shortages by implementing appropriate measures and adapting existing ones. Actions taken differ with regard to stakeholders addressed, the degree of obligation and the focus (optimising the management of existing shortages vs. prevention of future supply limitations).

Key messages

A mix of measures to address medicine shortages is applied in European countries. Recently, the number of measures increased, and actions requested from stakeholders tend to have become mandatory.

Surveillance pouchoscopy for dysplasia: Cleveland Clinic Ileoanal Pouch Anastomosis Database

BACKGROUND

No formal guidelines exist for surveillance pouchoscopy following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

All adults who had previously had IPAA for ulcerative colitis, and underwent a pouchoscopy between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2020, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 9398 pouchoscopy procedures were performed in 3672 patients. The majority of the examinations were diagnostic (8082, 86·0 per cent; 3260 patients) and the remainder were for routine surveillance (1316, 14·0 per cent; 412 patients). Thirteen patients (0·14 per cent of procedures) were found to have biopsy-proven neoplasia at the time of pouchoscopy; seven had low-grade dysplasia (LGD) (0·07 per cent; all located in the anal transition zone), none had high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and six (0·06 per cent) had invasive adenocarcinoma (4 in anal transition zone and 6 in pouch). Of the six patients with adenocarcinoma, four had neoplasia at the time of proctocolectomy (2 adenocarcinoma, 1 LGD, 1 HGD); all six were symptomatic with anal bleeding or pelvic pain at the time of pouchoscopy, had a negative surveillance pouchoscopy examination within 2 years of diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, had palpable masses on digital rectal examination, and had visible lesions at the time of pouchoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Surveillance pouchoscopy is not recommended in asymptomatic patients because significant neoplasia following IPAA for ulcerative colitis is rare.

Medicines with one seller and many buyers: strategies to increase the power of the payer

Andrew Rintoul and colleagues argue that collaboration and transparency increase the market power of buyers who face a monopoly

Financial Burden of Prescribed Medicines Included in Outpatient Benefits Package Schemes: Comparative Analysis of Co-Payments for Reimbursable Medicines in European Countries

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to analyse the financial burden that co-payments for prescribed and reimbursed medicines pose on patients in European countries.

METHODS

Five medicines used in acute conditions (antibiotic, analgesic) and in chronic care (hypertension, asthma, diabetes) were selected. Co-payments (standard and five defined population groups, e.g. low-income people, patients with high consumption) were surveyed based on information retrieved from national price lists (September 2017) and co-payment regulation in nine countries (Albania, Austria, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan and Sweden). The financial burden of the selected medicines (originator and lowest-priced generic) was described as the percentage of patients' payments for 1 month's therapy or treatment of one episode in comparison to the national minimum monthly wage.

RESULTS

The study showed large variation in co-payments between the countries. Financial burden resulting from co-payments for reimbursed medicines tended to be higher in lower-income countries (Kyrgyzstan: 9% of minimum monthly wage for generic amlodipine; 2-4% for generic and originator salbutamol; Albania: approximately 3% for originator amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and metformin). Most studied countries applied reduction or exemption mechanisms (children were exempt in five countries, no or lower co-payments for low-income people in five countries, exemptions from co-payments upon reaching a threshold of expenses in six countries).

CONCLUSIONS

Co-payments for prescribed medicines can pose a substantial financial burden for outpatients, particularly in lower-income countries. The price of a medicine, availability of lower-priced medicines and the design of co-payments, including exemptions and reductions for specific groups, can considerably impact patients' expenses for medicines.

Evolution of Average European Medicine Prices: Implications for the Methodology of External Price Referencing

BACKGROUND

There are indications of staggered market entry of medicines in the national markets, with medicines being marketed first in countries with high prices. This study aimed to analyse the availability and evolution of medicine prices in the European Union (EU).

METHODS

This research was performed for an illustrative sample of five medicines (abiraterone, emtricitabine/rilpivirine/tenofovir disoproxil, fingolimod, linagliptin and sofosbuvir) in 27 EU Member States. Price data at 6, 12, 18, 36 and 60 months after marketing authorisation were retrieved from national administrative price databases and registers accessible through the Pharma Price Information service.

RESULTS

In the first year after marketing authorisation, price data for the selected medicines were only available in a small number of EU Member States-usually high-income countries. Availability increased over time. However, some countries, for instance Central and Eastern Europe, had price data available only several years after marketing authorisation. The average European price of the surveyed medicines decreased by at least 7.1% between 6 months and 3 years and at least 9.5% between 6 months and 5 years after marketing authorisation. Price data availability in lower-income countries at later stages, and price decreases in some countries, appear to be major reasons for the reductions in average prices.

CONCLUSIONS

If policymakers aim to apply the pricing policy of external price referencing (i.e. price setting based on prices in other countries) for cost-containment purposes, they are recommended to undertake continuous price revisions over the years.

Affordable and equitable access to subsidised outpatient medicines? Analysis of co-payments under the Additional Drug Package in Kyrgyzstan

BACKGROUND

Out-of-pocket (OOP) payments can constitute a major barrier for affordable and equitable access to essential medicines. Household surveys in Kyrgyzstan pointed to a perceived growth in OOP payments for outpatient medicines, including those covered by the benefits package scheme (the Additional Drug Package, ADP). The study aimed to explore the extent of co-payments for ADP-listed medicines and to explain the reasons for developments.

METHODS

A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on prices and volumes of prescribed ADP-listed medicines dispensed in pharmacies during 2013-2015 (1,041,777 prescriptions claimed, data provided by the Mandatory Health Insurance Fund). Additionally, data on the value and volume of imported medicines in 2013-2015 (obtained from the National Medicines Regulatory Agency) were analysed.

RESULTS

In 2013-2015, co-payments for medicines dispensed under the ADP grew, on average, by 22.8%. Co-payments for ADP-listed medicines amounted to around 50% of a reimbursed baseline price, but as pharmacy retail prices were not regulated, co-payments tended to be higher in practice. The increase in co-payments coincided with a reduction in the number of prescriptions dispensed (by 14%) and an increase in average amounts reimbursed per prescription in nearly all therapeutic groups (by 22%) in the study period. While the decrease in prescriptions suggests possible underuse, as patients might forego filling prescriptions due to financial restraints, the growth in average amounts reimbursed could be an indication of inefficiencies in public funding. Variation between the regions suggests regional inequity. Devaluation of the national currency was observed, and the value of imported medicines increased by nearly 20%, whereas volumes of imports remained at around the same level in 2013-2015. Thus, patients and public procurers had to pay more for the same amount of medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest an increase in pharmacy retail prices as the major driver for higher co-payments. The national currency devaluation contributed to the price increases, and the absence of medicine price regulation aggravated the effects of the depreciation. It is recommended that Kyrgyzstan should introduce medicine price regulation and exemptions for low-income people from co-payments to ensure a more affordable and equitable access to medicines.

Medication wasted - Contents and costs of medicines ending up in household garbage

BACKGROUND

Despite potentially considerable implications for public health, the environment and public funds, medicine waste is an under-researched topic. This study aims to analyse medicines drawn from household garbage in Vienna (Austria) and to assess possible financial implications for public payers.

METHODS

Four pharmaceutical waste samples collected by the Vienna Municipal Waste Department between April 2015 and January 2016 were investigated with regard to their content. The value of medicines was assessed at ex-factory, reimbursement and pharmacy retail price levels, and the portion of costs attributable to the social health insurance was determined. Data were extrapolated for Vienna and Austria.

RESULTS

The waste sample contained 1089 items, of which 42% were excluded (non-pharmaceuticals, non-Austrian origin and non-attributable medicines). A total of 637 items were further analysed. Approximately 18% of these medicines were full packs. 36% of the medicines wasted had not yet expired. Nearly two out of three medicines wasted were prescription-only medicines. The majority were medicines related to the 'alimentary tract and metabolism' (ATC code A), the 'nervous system' (ATC code N) and the 'respiratory system' (ATC code R). The medicines wasted had a total value of € 1965, € 2987 and € 4207, expressed at ex-factory, reimbursement and pharmacy retail price levels, respectively. Extrapolated for Vienna, at least € 37.65 million in terms of expenditure for public payers were wasted in household garbage, corresponding to € 21 per inhabitant.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that in Vienna some medicines end up partially used or even completely unused in household garbage, including prescription-only medicines, non-expired medicines and medicines for chronic diseases. While there might be different reasons for medicines being wasted, the findings suggest possible adherence challenges as one issue to be addressed.

How Can Pricing and Reimbursement Policies Improve Affordable Access to Medicines? Lessons Learned from European Countries

This article discusses pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies in European countries with regard to their ability to ensure affordable access to medicines. A frequently applied pricing policy is external price referencing. While it provides some benchmark for policy-makers and has been shown to be able to generate savings, it may also contribute to delay in product launch in countries where medicine prices are low. Value-based pricing has been proposed as a policy that promotes access while rewarding useful innovation; however, implementing it has proven quite challenging. For high-priced medicines, managed-entry agreements are increasingly used. These agreements allow policy-makers to manage uncertainty and obtain lower prices. They can also facilitate earlier market access in case of limited evidence about added therapeutic value of the medicine. However, these agreements raise transparency concerns due to the confidentiality clause. Tendering as used in the hospital and offpatent outpatient sectors has been proven to reduce medicine prices but it requires a robust framework and appropriate design with clear strategic goals in order to prevent shortages. These pricing and reimbursement policies are supplemented by the widespread use of Health Technology Assessment to inform decision-making, and by strategies to improve the uptake of generics, and also biosimilars. While European countries have been implementing a set of policy options, there is a lack of thorough impact assessments of several pricing and reimbursement policies on affordable access. Increased cooperation between authorities, experience sharing and improving transparency on price information, including the disclosure of confidential discounts, are opportunities to address current challenges.

Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: Lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future

Objectives: The aim of this study is to conduct an analysis on the regulation and application of managed entry agreements (MEA) for oncology drugs across different European countries. Methods: Literature search and document analysis were performed between September 2015 and June 2016 to collect information on the regulatory framework and practice of MEA in Belgium, The Netherlands, Scotland, England and Wales, Sweden, Italy, Czech Republic and France. An overview of the content and typology of MEA applied for oncology drugs between 2008 and 2015 was generated based on publically available sources and contributions by national health authorities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of national health authorities involved in the management or negotiation of MEA. Results: The application of MEA differs across countries and across different indications for the same drug. Financial based agreements are prevailing due to their simplicity compared to performance-based agreements. Performance-based agreements are less commonly applied in the European countries except for Italy. In the Netherlands, application of performance-based agreements was stopped due to their inability to deal with dynamics in the market, which is highly relevant for oncology drugs. Conclusions: MEA constitute a common policy tool that public payers in European countries use to ensure early access to highly priced oncology drugs. In light of strengths and weaknesses observed for MEA and the expected developments in the oncology area, the importance of MEA is likely to grow in the future.

Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: Lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future

Objectives: The aim of this study is to conduct an analysis on the regulation and application of managed entry agreements (MEA) for oncology drugs across different European countries. Methods: Literature search and document analysis were performed between September 2015 and June 2016 to collect information on the regulatory framework and practice of MEA in Belgium, The Netherlands, Scotland, England and Wales, Sweden, Italy, Czech Republic and France. An overview of the content and typology of MEA applied for oncology drugs between 2008 and 2015 was generated based on publically available sources and contributions by national health authorities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of national health authorities involved in the management or negotiation of MEA. Results: The application of MEA differs across countries and across different indications for the same drug. Financial based agreements are prevailing due to their simplicity compared to performance-based agreements. Performance-based agreements are less commonly applied in the European countries except for Italy. In the Netherlands, application of performance-based agreements was stopped due to their inability to deal with dynamics in the market, which is highly relevant for oncology drugs. Conclusions: MEA constitute a common policy tool that public payers in European countries use to ensure early access to highly priced oncology drugs. In light of strengths and weaknesses observed for MEA and the expected developments in the oncology area, the importance of MEA is likely to grow in the future.

Price comparison of high-cost originator medicines in European countries

BACKGROUND

In recent years, high-cost medicines have increasingly been challenging the public health budget in all countries including high-income economies. In this context, this study aims to survey, analyze and compare prices of medicines that likely contribute to high expenditure for the public payers in high-income countries.

METHODS

We chose the following 16 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Spain and United Kingdom. The ex-factory price data of 30 medicines in these countries were collected in national databases accessible through the Pharmaceutical Price Information (PPI) service of Gesundheit Österreich GmbH (Austrian Public Health Institute).

RESULTS

The ex-factory prices (median) per unit (e.g. per tablet, vial) ranged from 10.67 cent (levodopa + decarboxylase inhibitor) to 17,000 euro (ipilimumab). A total of 53% of the medicines surveyed had a unit ex-factory price (median) above 200 Euro. For two thirds of the medicines, price differences between the highest-priced country and lowest-priced country ranged between 25 and 100%; the remaining medicines, mainly low-priced medicines, had higher price differential, up to 251%. Medicines with unit prices of a few euros or less were medicines for the treatment of diseases in the nervous system (anti-depressants, medicines to treat Parkinson and for the management of neuropathic pain), of obstructive airway diseases and cardio-vascular medicines (lipid modifying agents). High-priced medicines were particularly cancer medicines.

CONCLUSION

Medicine prices of Greece, Hungary, Slovakia and UK were frequently at the lower end, German and Swedish, as well as Danish and Irish prices at the upper end. For high-priced medicines, actual paid prices are likely to be lower due to confidential discounts and similar funding arrangements between industry and public payers. Pricing authorities refer to the higher undiscounted prices when they use price data from other countries for their pricing decisions.

Pharmaceutical regulation in 15 European countries review

In the context of pharmaceutical care, policy-makers repeatedly face the challenge of balancing patient access to effective medicines with affordability and rising costs. With the aim of guiding the health policy discourse towards questions that are important to actual and potential patients, this study investigates a broad range of regulatory measures, spanning marketing authorization to generic substitution and resulting price levels in a sample of 16 European health systems (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Sweden). All countries employ a mix of regulatory mechanisms to contain pharmaceutical expenditure and ensure quality and efficiency in pharmaceutical care, albeit with varying configurations and rigour. This variation also influences the extent of publicly financed pharmaceutical costs. Overall, observed differences in pharmaceutical expenditure should be interpreted in conjunction with the differing volume and composition of consumption and price levels, as well as dispensation practices and their impact on measurement of pharmaceutical costs. No definitive evidence has yet been produced on the effects of different cost-containment measures on patient outcomes. Depending on the foremost policy concerns in each country, different levers will have to be used to enable the delivery of appropriate care at affordable prices.

Economic Evaluation of Hospital and Community Pharmacy Services

Objective: To review the international body of literature from 2010 to 2015 concerning methods of economic evaluations used in hospital- and community-based studies of pharmacy services in publicly funded health systems worldwide, their clinical outcomes, and economic effectiveness. Data Sources: The literature search was undertaken between May 2, 2015, and September 4, 2015. Keywords included “health economics” and “evaluation” “assessment” or “appraisal,” “methods,” “hospital” or “community” or “residential care,” “pharmacy” or “pharmacy services” and “cost minimisation analysis” or “cost utility analysis” or “cost effectiveness analysis” or “cost benefit analysis.” The databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Springer Links, and Scopus, and journals searched included PLoS One, PLoS Medicine, Nature, Health Policy, Pharmacoeconomics, The European Journal of Health Economics, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and Journal of Health Economics. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Studies were selected on the basis of study inclusion criteria. These criteria included full-text original research articles undertaking an economic evaluation of hospital- or community-based pharmacy services in peer-reviewed scientific journals and in English, in countries with a publicly funded health system published between 2010 and 2015. Data Synthesis: 14 articles were included in this review. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) was the most utilized measure. Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was not used by any studies. The limited use of cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) is likely a result of technical challenges in quantifying the cost of clinical benefits, risks, and outcomes. Hospital pharmacy services provided clinical benefits including improvements in patient health outcomes and reductions in adverse medication use, and all studies were considered cost-effective due to meeting a cost-utility (per quality-adjusted life year) threshold or were cost saving. Community pharmacy services were considered cost-effective in 8 of 10 studies. Conclusions: Economic evaluations of hospital and community pharmacy services are becoming increasingly commonplace to enable an understanding of which health care services provide value for money and to inform policy makers as to which services will be cost-effective in light of limited health care resources.

Prices, Costs, and Affordability of New Medicines for Hepatitis C in 30 Countries: An Economic Analysis

INTRODUCTION

New hepatitis C virus (HCV) medicines have markedly improved treatment efficacy and regimen tolerability. However, their high prices have limited access, prompting wide debate about fair and affordable prices. This study systematically compared the price and affordability of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir across 30 countries to assess affordability to health systems and patients.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Published 2015 ex-factory prices for a 12-wk course of treatment were provided by the Pharma Price Information (PPI) service of the Austrian public health institute Gesundheit Österreich GmbH or were obtained from national government or drug reimbursement authorities and recent press releases, where necessary. Prices in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and select low- and middle-income countries were converted to US dollars using period average exchange rates and were adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). We analysed prices compared to national economic performance and estimated market size and the cost of these drugs in terms of countries' annual total pharmaceutical expenditure (TPE) and in terms of the duration of time an individual would need to work to pay for treatment out of pocket. Patient affordability was calculated using 2014 OECD average annual wages, supplemented with International Labour Organization median wage data where necessary. All data were compiled between 17 July 2015 and 25 January 2016. For the base case analysis, we assumed a 23% rebate/discount on the published price in all countries, except for countries with special pricing arrangements or generic licensing agreements. The median nominal ex-factory price of a 12-wk course of sofosbuvir across 26 OECD countries was US$42,017, ranging from US$37,729 in Japan to US$64,680 in the US. Central and Eastern European countries had higher PPP-adjusted prices than other countries: prices of sofosbuvir in Poland and Turkey (PPP$101,063 and PPP$70,331) and of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in Poland (PPP$118,754) were at least 1.09 and 1.63 times higher, respectively than in the US (PPP$64,680 and PPP$72,765). Based on PPP-adjusted TPE and without the cost of ribavirin and other treatment costs, treating the entire HCV viraemic population with these regimens at the PPP-adjusted prices with a 23% price reduction would amount to at least one-tenth of current TPE across the countries included in this study, ranging from 10.5% of TPE in the Netherlands to 190.5% of TPE in Poland. In 12 countries, the price of a course of sofosbuvir without other costs was equivalent to 1 y or more of the average annual wage of individuals, ranging from 0.21 y in Egypt to 5.28 y in Turkey. This analysis relies on the accuracy of price information and infection prevalence estimates. It does not include the costs of diagnostic testing, supplementary treatments, treatment for patients with reinfection or cirrhosis, or associated health service costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current prices of these medicines are variable and unaffordable globally. These prices threaten the sustainability of health systems in many countries and prevent large-scale provision of treatment. Stakeholders should implement a fairer pricing framework to deliver lower prices that take account of affordability. Without lower prices, countries are unlikely to be able to increase investment to minimise the burden of hepatitis C.

Pharmaceutical policies in a crisis? Challenges and solutions identified at the PPRI Conference

In October 2015, the third international Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) Conference was held in Vienna to foster discussion on challenges in pricing and reimbursement policies for medicines. The research presented highlighted that commonly used pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies are not sufficiently effective to address current challenges. Conference participants called for fundamental reforms to ensure access to medicines, particularly to new and potentially more effective and/or safe medicines, while safeguarding the financial sustainability of health systems and working towards universal health coverage.