Essential to increase the use of generics in Europe to maintain comprehensive health care?

INTRODUCTION: Reforms have been introduced across Europe to increase prescribing efficiency with existing drugs. These include measures to lower prices of generics as well as increase their prescribing versus originators and patented products in a class or related class. This is essential to maintain comprehensive health care in Europe given continued pressures. The alternative is insufficient funds for new innovative drugs and increasing drug volumes with ageing populations. OBJECTIVE: To review the influence of measures and initiatives to increase the prescribing and dispensing of generics at low prices on ambulatory care prescribing efficiency. In view of this, provide guidance as authorities strive to introduce further reforms to meet their goals. METHODOLOGY: A narrative review of published papers combined with case histories. RESULTS: The different supply- and demand-side measures have reduced generic prices to as low as 2% to 3% of pre-patent loss prices in some cases as well as appreciably enhanced their utilisation. As a result, prescribing efficiency has increased without compromising care. In some cases, the reforms have led to expenditure actually falling despite appreciably increased volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing use of generics at low prices will help maintain the European ideals of comprehensive and equitable health care. However, countries will continually need to learn from each other

Initiatives to increase the prescribing of low cost generics : the case of Scotland in the international context

Getting the most out of the pharmaceutical budget is critical across all countries as the financial pressures on healthcare systems intensify. In this paper, we review global practice on encouraging the use of low costs generics versus branded pharmaceuticals, including patented products in the same class where care is not compromised across countries to guide future practice. Our review ranges widely across European countries as well as other high income countries, including Abu Dhabi, Japan and the USA, and other low and middle income Countries. There is a particular focus on Scotland, building on previous publications. We conclude based on multiple publications, including several case studies, that achieving efficiency in pharmaceutical spending is possible in virtually all environments, although there are examples of technologies where generic or therapeutic substitution should not be encouraged. However, there is no magic bullet to achieving full and appropriate use of generics. Countries have to be prepared to use a number of different education, economic, engineering and enforcement methods including prescribing restrictions to achieve success. Similarly, different approaches to achieve low prices for good quality generics given the considerable price differences that currently exist. The combination of low prices and increased use of generics will help achieve or attain universal healthcare, benefiting all key stakeholder groups. We conclude with a call for greater cross-country learning in pursuit of what should be a common goal for all health systems

The consequences of greater net price transparency for innovative medicines in Europe: Searching for a consensus

The merits of greater or lesser net price transparency (NPT) has been a topic for discussion for many years across business and industry in general. However, in the past few years, the debate on NPT of innovative medicines has intensified, with organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) leading calls for greater transparency in the pharmaceutical sector, specifically focused on prices. In May 2019 the World Health Assembly (WHA) approved a resolution to support the greater public disclosure of prices and research and development (R&D) costs for both medicines and other health products supported by several European and non-European governments. To contribute to the international debate on the transparency of medicine prices in Europe, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) asked Charles River Associates (CRA) to curate a panel of experts to develop evidence on the impact of greater NPT of innovative medicines. Professor Walter Van Dyck1 and Professor Massimo Riccaboni2 were asked by CRA to lead this research, supported by a wider panel of 10 experts from a range of European markets. A structured literature review was first conducted to summarise the theoretical consequences of greater NPT. This was supplemented with a survey of national payers and payer experts3 from a range of European markets. This was used as pre-read information for an expert advisory board of 12 economic and health economic experts representing 12 countries selected to give a range of market sizes, national income and payer approaches. The debate and the consensus reached by the advisory board have been summarised in this report. In addition, a computational model has been developed by two key investigators to provide new, empirical evidence to illustrate the impact of NPT on different European markets

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe : Findings and Implications

Funding Information: In Bosnia and Herzegovina, both The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, also have special funds and budgets in place for the financing of expensive medicines, which are innovative and under patent. Similar earmarked funds are available in Scotland (the New Medicines Fund funded by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme [PPRS] rebates) [35] and England (the Cancer Drugs Fund) [36]. However, support for such earmarked funds is mixed. While they facilitate access, critics raised issues about fairness towards other disease areas and patient groups that are not eligible for special funding [3, 39]. Further, the views of a Patient and Clinician Engagement meeting in Scotland [37] and the end-of-life criteria in England [38] offer opportunities for special considerations affecting medicines for end-of-life and very rare conditions to be taken into account in the health technology assessment process. Funding Information: The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Jan Jones from the Scottish Medicines Consortium, Scotland, for contributing to the discussion with information on Scotland, Drs. Lyudmila Bezmelnitsyna and Anastasia Isaeva for contributing to data collection in Russia and Dr. Kate?ina Podrazilov? from SZP ?R for providing information on the Czech Republic. Alessandra Ferrario was a Research Officer at the LSE Health at the time this research was conducted. She is now a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, USA. Email: [email protected] No sources of funding were used for this study. The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest. However, Di?na Ar?ja, Maria Dimitrova, Jurij F?rst, Ieva Grei?i?t?-Kuprijanov, Iris Hoxha, Arianit Jakupi, Erki Laidm?e, Vanda Markovic-Pekovic, Dmitry Meshkov, Guenka Petrova, Maciej Pomorski and Patricia Vella Bonanno work directly for national health authorities or are advisers to them. Alessandra Ferrario, Tomasz Bochenek, Ileana Mardare, Dominik Tomek, Luka Voncina, Alan Haycox, Panos Kanavos,?Olga L?blov?, and Brian Godman are academics and independent researchers also working with national and regional health authorities and others to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing, and Tarik Catic, D?vid Dank?,and Tanja Novakovic are involved with pharmaceutical, pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research groups in their countries. Olga L?blov? has also carried out remunerated consultancy activities for A&R Partners, Baxter AG and Instytut Arcana and Ileana Mardare has signed a consulting contract with Ewopharma A.G. Romania. The content of the paper and the conclusions are those of each author and may not necessarily reflect those of any organisation that employs them. Publisher Copyright: © 2017, The Author(s).Background: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. Method: We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Results: Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Conclusions: Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Integrative review of managed entry agreements : chances and limitations

Introduction: Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries. Methods: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was ‘What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?’ This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior level co-authors including key South American markets. Afterall, involved senior level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. Results: 25 studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%), and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. Conclusion: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs