Having your cake and eating it: Office of fair trading proposal for funding new drugs to benefit patients and innovative companies

Brian Godman, Alan Haycox, Ulrich Schwabe, Roberta Joppi, Silvio Garattini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

There are insufficient resources in the UK to fund all new technologies and new indications approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diverting funding from existing sources will have a detrimental effect on the provision of other priority services. The UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) recently suggested a value-based pricing approach that appears workable but has generated considerable debate. Their proposal of a 25% premium for the originator product once generics are available is more generous than seen in a number of other European countries, where typically only the lowest priced product is reimbursed. The OFT proposal for a maximum 50% premium for patent-protected products, versus the prices of generics in a class or related classes, is also more generous than the proposed reforms for the pricing of proton pump inhibitors in Sweden or current reforms in Germany. In our opinion, the OFT proposals are persuasive and in accordance with the reforms seen in other European countries, and therefore should be adopted. The alternatives to fully funding new drugs or new indications as approved by NICE are either tightening the cost per QALY threshold, giving NICE an annual notional budget to fund its advice alongside suggested areas for disinvestment, proactively switching patients from high-cost brand-name drugs to generics, or further delaying funding for new drugs and new indications approved by NICE. The majority of these suggestions are not in the best interests of patients or innovative pharmaceutical companies seeking to reap the rewards of their efforts.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)91-98
Number of pages8
JournalPharmacoEconomics
Volume26
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Fingerprint

National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Eating
Costs and Cost Analysis
Financial Management
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Generic Drugs
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Proton Pump Inhibitors
Budgets
Reward
Sweden
Names
Germany
Technology

Keywords

  • Formularies
  • Health policy
  • Health services accessibility
  • Pricing
  • Reimbursement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Having your cake and eating it : Office of fair trading proposal for funding new drugs to benefit patients and innovative companies. / Godman, Brian; Haycox, Alan; Schwabe, Ulrich; Joppi, Roberta; Garattini, Silvio.

In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2008, p. 91-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0202fd989a0e4404b18b3c05ce6ae525,
title = "Having your cake and eating it: Office of fair trading proposal for funding new drugs to benefit patients and innovative companies",
abstract = "There are insufficient resources in the UK to fund all new technologies and new indications approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diverting funding from existing sources will have a detrimental effect on the provision of other priority services. The UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) recently suggested a value-based pricing approach that appears workable but has generated considerable debate. Their proposal of a 25{\%} premium for the originator product once generics are available is more generous than seen in a number of other European countries, where typically only the lowest priced product is reimbursed. The OFT proposal for a maximum 50{\%} premium for patent-protected products, versus the prices of generics in a class or related classes, is also more generous than the proposed reforms for the pricing of proton pump inhibitors in Sweden or current reforms in Germany. In our opinion, the OFT proposals are persuasive and in accordance with the reforms seen in other European countries, and therefore should be adopted. The alternatives to fully funding new drugs or new indications as approved by NICE are either tightening the cost per QALY threshold, giving NICE an annual notional budget to fund its advice alongside suggested areas for disinvestment, proactively switching patients from high-cost brand-name drugs to generics, or further delaying funding for new drugs and new indications approved by NICE. The majority of these suggestions are not in the best interests of patients or innovative pharmaceutical companies seeking to reap the rewards of their efforts.",
keywords = "Formularies, Health policy, Health services accessibility, Pricing, Reimbursement",
author = "Brian Godman and Alan Haycox and Ulrich Schwabe and Roberta Joppi and Silvio Garattini",
year = "2008",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "91--98",
journal = "PharmacoEconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Having your cake and eating it

T2 - Office of fair trading proposal for funding new drugs to benefit patients and innovative companies

AU - Godman, Brian

AU - Haycox, Alan

AU - Schwabe, Ulrich

AU - Joppi, Roberta

AU - Garattini, Silvio

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - There are insufficient resources in the UK to fund all new technologies and new indications approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diverting funding from existing sources will have a detrimental effect on the provision of other priority services. The UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) recently suggested a value-based pricing approach that appears workable but has generated considerable debate. Their proposal of a 25% premium for the originator product once generics are available is more generous than seen in a number of other European countries, where typically only the lowest priced product is reimbursed. The OFT proposal for a maximum 50% premium for patent-protected products, versus the prices of generics in a class or related classes, is also more generous than the proposed reforms for the pricing of proton pump inhibitors in Sweden or current reforms in Germany. In our opinion, the OFT proposals are persuasive and in accordance with the reforms seen in other European countries, and therefore should be adopted. The alternatives to fully funding new drugs or new indications as approved by NICE are either tightening the cost per QALY threshold, giving NICE an annual notional budget to fund its advice alongside suggested areas for disinvestment, proactively switching patients from high-cost brand-name drugs to generics, or further delaying funding for new drugs and new indications approved by NICE. The majority of these suggestions are not in the best interests of patients or innovative pharmaceutical companies seeking to reap the rewards of their efforts.

AB - There are insufficient resources in the UK to fund all new technologies and new indications approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diverting funding from existing sources will have a detrimental effect on the provision of other priority services. The UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) recently suggested a value-based pricing approach that appears workable but has generated considerable debate. Their proposal of a 25% premium for the originator product once generics are available is more generous than seen in a number of other European countries, where typically only the lowest priced product is reimbursed. The OFT proposal for a maximum 50% premium for patent-protected products, versus the prices of generics in a class or related classes, is also more generous than the proposed reforms for the pricing of proton pump inhibitors in Sweden or current reforms in Germany. In our opinion, the OFT proposals are persuasive and in accordance with the reforms seen in other European countries, and therefore should be adopted. The alternatives to fully funding new drugs or new indications as approved by NICE are either tightening the cost per QALY threshold, giving NICE an annual notional budget to fund its advice alongside suggested areas for disinvestment, proactively switching patients from high-cost brand-name drugs to generics, or further delaying funding for new drugs and new indications approved by NICE. The majority of these suggestions are not in the best interests of patients or innovative pharmaceutical companies seeking to reap the rewards of their efforts.

KW - Formularies

KW - Health policy

KW - Health services accessibility

KW - Pricing

KW - Reimbursement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38349070425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38349070425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 18198930

AN - SCOPUS:38349070425

VL - 26

SP - 91

EP - 98

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 2

ER -