IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v87y2008i2p133-145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing health and industrial policy objectives in the pharmaceutical sector: Lessons from Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Morgan, Steve
  • McMahon, Meghan
  • Greyson, Devon

Abstract

Introduction Policy-makers worldwide struggle to balance health with industrial policy objectives in the pharmaceutical sector. Tensions arise over pricing and reimbursement in particular. What health plans view as necessary to maintain equitable access to medicines, industry views as inimical to R&D and innovation. Australia has grappled with this issue for years, even incorporating the goal of "maintaining a responsible and viable medicines industry" into its National Medicines Policy.Methods This case study was conducted via a narrative review that examined Australia's experiences balancing health and industrial policy objectives in the pharmaceutical sector. The review included electronic databases, grey literature and government publications for reports on relevant Australian policy published over the period 1985-2007.Results While pharmaceutical companies claim that Australia's pricing and reimbursement policies suppress drug prices and reduce profits, national policy audits indicate these claims are misguided. Australia appears to have secured relatively low prices for generics and "me-too drugs" while paying internationally competitive prices for "breakthrough" medicines. Simultaneously, Australia has focused efforts on local pharmaceutical investment through a variety of industry-targeted R&D incentive policies.Discussion Despite the fact that policy reviews suggest that Australia has achieved balance between health and industrial policy objectives, the country continues to face criticism from industry that its health goals harm innovation and R&D. Recent reforms raise the question whether Australia can sustain the apparent balance.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgan, Steve & McMahon, Meghan & Greyson, Devon, 2008. "Balancing health and industrial policy objectives in the pharmaceutical sector: Lessons from Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 133-145, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:87:y:2008:i:2:p:133-145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00010-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Productivity Commission, 2003. "Evaluation of the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program," Microeconomics 0305001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Anders Anell, 2004. "Priority setting for pharmaceuticals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 28-35, February.
    3. Vandergrift, Michael & Kanavos, Panos, 1997. "Health policy versus industrial policy in the pharmaceutical sector: the case of Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 241-260, September.
    4. Productivity Commission, 2007. "Public Support for Science and Innovation," Research Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 24.
    5. Lofgren, Hans & Boer, Rebecca de, 2004. "Pharmaceuticals in Australia: developments in regulation and governance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(12), pages 2397-2407, June.
    6. Stephane Jacobzone, 2000. "Pharmaceutical Policies in OECD Countries: Reconciling Social and Industrial Goals," OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers 40, OECD Publishing.
    7. Productivity Commission, 2001. "International pharmaceutical price differences," Others 0107004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vogler, Sabine & Zimmermann, Nina & de Joncheere, Kees, 2016. "Policy interventions related to medicines: Survey of measures taken in European countries during 2010–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1363-1377.
    2. Yakovlev, Andrei & Govorun, Andrei, 2011. "Industrial Associations as a Channel of Business-Government Interactions in an Imperfect Institutional Environment: The Russian Case," IWH Discussion Papers 16/2011, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    3. Andrei Yakovlev & Andrei Govorun, 2011. "Industrial Associations as a Channel of Business-Government Interactions in an Imperfect Institutional Environment: The Russian Case," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 116, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gianluca Baio & Laura Magazzini & Antonio Nicita & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2003. "Il Decreto DL 15/04/2002, n. 63 sul Contenimento della Spesa Farmaceutica - Impatto sull'Industria e Distorsioni nel Funzionamento del Mercato," Working Papers CERM 0-2003, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    2. Diogo Ferraz & Fernanda P. S. Falguera & Enzo B. Mariano & Dominik Hartmann, 2021. "Linking Economic Complexity, Diversification, and Industrial Policy with Sustainable Development: A Structured Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, January.
    3. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    4. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    5. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    6. Emma Verastegui & Alejandro Mohar, 2010. "Colorectal cancer in Mexico: should a middle income country invest in screening or in treatment?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 107-114, January.
    7. Iain M. Cockburn & Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2016. "Patents and the Global Diffusion of New Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 136-164, January.
    8. Antonio Cabrales, 2003. "Pharmaceutical generics, vertical product differentiation and public policy," Economics Working Papers 662, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. John Quiggin, 2005. "Pharmaceuticals and Intellectual Property: The US-Australia FTA," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 145-158.
    10. Ammas Siraj Mohammed & Nigist Alemayehu Woldekidan & Fuad Adem Mohammed, 2020. "Knowledge, attitude, and practice of pharmacy professionals on generic medicines in Eastern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Verniers, Isabel & Stremersch, Stefan & Croux, Christophe, 2011. "The global entry of new pharmaceuticals: A joint investigation of launch window and price," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 295-308.
    12. Gambardella, Alfonso & Orsenigo, Luigi & Pammolli, Fabio, 2000. "Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals: A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 15965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Fattore, Giovanni & Jommi, Claudio, 1998. "The new pharmaceutical policy in Italy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 21-41, October.
    14. Emmanuelle Auriol & Pierre M. Picard, 2009. "Government Outsourcing: Public Contracting with Private Monopoly," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1464-1493, October.
    15. Klibanoff Peter & Kundu Tapas, 2010. "Monopoly Pricing under a Medicaid-Style Most-Favored-Customer Clause and Its Welfare Implication," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-43, August.
    16. John Yfantopoulos, 2008. "Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement reforms in Greece," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 87-97, February.
    17. Ming Liu & Sumner la Croix, 2013. "A Cross-Country Index of Intellectual Property Rights in Pharmaceutical Innovations," Working Papers 201313, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    18. Sarma, Sisira & Basu, Kisalaya & Gupta, Anil, 2007. "The influence of prescription drug insurance on psychotropic and non-psychotropic drug utilization in Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 2553-2565, December.
    19. Desmet, Klaus & Kujal, Praveen & Lobo, Felix, 2004. "Implementing R&D policies: an analysis of Spain's pharmaceutical research program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1493-1507, December.
    20. Kwon, Hye-Young & Hong, Ji-Min & Godman, Brian & Yang, Bong-Min, 2013. "Price cuts and drug spending in South Korea: The case of antihyperlipidemic agents," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 217-226.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:87:y:2008:i:2:p:133-145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.