IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v29y2011i1p63-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Availability of and Access to Orphan Drugs

Author

Listed:
  • Carl Blankart
  • Tom Stargardt
  • Jonas Schreyögg

Abstract

Background: Market authorization does not guarantee patient access to any given drug. This is particularly true for costly orphan drugs because access depends primarily on co-payments, reimbursement policies and prices. The objective of this article is to identify differences in the availability of orphan drugs and in patient access to them in 11 pharmaceutical markets: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and the US. Methods: Four rare diseases were selected for analysis: pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), Fabry disease (FD), hereditary angioedema (HAE) and chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). Indicators for availability were defined as (i) the indications for which orphan drugs had been authorized in the treatment of these diseases; (ii) the application date; and (iii) the date upon which these drugs received market authorization in each country. Indicators of patient access were defined as (i) the outcomes of technology appraisals; (ii) the extent of coverage provided by healthcare payers; and (iii) the price of the drugs in each country. For PAH we analysed bosentan, iloprost, sildenafil, treprostinil (intravenous and inhaled) as well as sitaxentan and ambrisentan; for FD we analysed agalsidase alfa and agalsidase beta; for HAE we analysed icatibant, ecallantide and two complement C1s inhibitors; for CML we analysed imatinib, dasatinib and nilotinib. Results: Most drugs included in this study had received market authorization in all countries, but the range of indications for which they had been authorized differed by country. The broadest range of indications was found in Australia, and the largest variations in indications were found for PAH drugs. Authorization process speed (the time between application and market authorization) was fastest in the US, with an average of 362 days, followed by the EU (394 days). The highest prices for the included drugs were found in Germany and the US, and the lowest in Canada, Australia and England. Although the prices of all of the included drugs were high compared with those of most non-orphan drugs, most of the insurance plans in our country sample provided coverage for authorized drugs after a certain threshold. Conclusions: Availability of and access to orphan drugs play a key role in determining whether patients will receive adequate and efficient treatment. Although the present study showed some variations between countries in selected indicators of availability and access to orphan drugs, virtually all of the drugs in question were available and accessible in our sample. However, substantial co-payments in the US and Canada represent important barriers to patient access, especially in the case of expensive treatments such as those analysed in this study. Market exclusivity is a strong instrument for fostering orphan drug development and drug availability. However, despite the positive effect of this instrument, the conditions under which market exclusivity is granted should be reconsidered in cases where the costs of developing an orphan drug have already been amortized through the use of the drug’s active ingredient for the treatment of a common indication. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Carl Blankart & Tom Stargardt & Jonas Schreyögg, 2011. "Availability of and Access to Orphan Drugs," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 63-82, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:1:p:63-82
    DOI: 10.2165/11539190-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11539190-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11539190-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Garattini, Livio & Cornago, Dante & De Compadri, Paola, 2007. "Pricing and reimbursement of in-patent drugs in seven European countries: A comparative analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 330-339, August.
    2. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2004. "Dynamic competition in pharmaceuticals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(2), pages 175-182, May.
    3. Yin, Wesley, 2008. "Market incentives and pharmaceutical innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1060-1077, July.
    4. AfDB AfDB, . "AfDB Group Annual Report 2007," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 63 edited by Koua Louis Kouakou.
    5. Magazzini, Laura & Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2004. "Dynamic Competition in Pharmaceuticals: Patent Expiry, Generic Penetration, and Industry Structure," MPRA Paper 15968, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Joshua Cohen & Laura Faden & Susan Predaris & Brian Young, 2007. "Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(3), pages 253-266, September.
    7. Yin, Wesley, 2009. "R&D policy, agency costs and innovation in personalized medicine," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 950-962, September.
    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. Se Hee Lee & Seung-Lai Yoo & Joon Seok Bang & Jong Hyuk Lee, 2020. "Patient Accessibility and Budget Impact of Orphan Drugs in South Korea: Long-Term and Real-World Data Analysis (2007–2019)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-8, April.
    2. Morgan, Steven G. & Daw, Jamie R. & Greyson, Devon & Shnier, Adrienne & Holbrook, Anne & Lexchin, Joel, 2020. "Variation in the prescription drugs covered by health systems across high-income countries: A review of and recommendations for the academic literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 231-238.

    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. Pierre Dubois & Olivier de Mouzon & Fiona Scott-Morton & Paul Seabright, 2015. "Market size and pharmaceutical innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 844-871, October.
    2. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Antoine Schoen, 2019. "Worldwide IP coverage of patented inventions in large pharma firms: to what extent do the internationalisation of R&D and firm strategy matter?," Post-Print hal-01725229, HAL.
    3. Joan Costa-i-Font & Alistair McGuire & Nebibe Varol, 2011. "Does Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Affect the Adoption of Generic Competition? Evidence from the OECD, 1999-2008," CESifo Working Paper Series 3441, CESifo.
    4. Christopher Ody & Matt Schmitt, 2019. "Who cares about a label? The effect of pediatric labeling changes on prescription drug utilization," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 419-447, December.
    5. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Gianluca Papa & Nicola Carmine Salerno, 2005. "Generici vs. Branded: confronto internazionale su prodotti off-patent rimborsati dal SSN," Working Papers CERM 01-2005, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    6. Mary K. Olson & Nina Yin, 2018. "Examining Firm Responses to R&D Policy: An Analysis of Pediatric Exclusivity," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(3), pages 321-357, Summer.
    7. Lockhart, Michelle & Babar, Zaheer Ud-Din & Garg, Sanjay, 2010. "Evaluation of policies to support drug development in New Zealand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 108-117, July.
    8. Gonzalez, Jorge & Sismeiro, Catarina & Dutta, Shantanu & Stern, Philip, 2008. "Can branded drugs benefit from generic entry? The role of detailing and price in switching to non-bioequivalent molecules," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 247-260.
    9. Birg, Laura, 2013. "Pharmaceutical regulation and health policy objectives," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 183, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    10. Appelt, Silvia, 2010. "Authorized Generic Entry prior to Patent Expiry: Reassessing Incentives for Independent Generic Entry," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 357, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    11. Gonzalez, Jorge & Sismeiro, Catarina & Dutta, Shantanu & Stern, Philip, 2006. "Market Effects of Generic Entry: The Role of Physicians and of Non-Bioequivalent Competitors," MPRA Paper 3717, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    12. Gianni Amisano & Maria Letizia Giorgetti, 2013. "Entry Into Pharmaceutical Submarkets: A Bayesian Panel Probit Analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 667-701, June.
    13. Simona Gamba & Laura Magazzini & Paolo Pertile, 2019. "R&D and market size: who benefits from orphan drug regulation?," Working Papers 09/2019, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    14. Magazzini Laura & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2013. "R&D, Within and Between Patent Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Working Papers 3/2013, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, revised Jul 2013.
    15. repec:ags:aare05:139334 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Kalcheva, Ivalina & McLemore, Ping & Pant, Shagun, 2018. "Innovation: The interplay between demand-side shock and supply-side environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 440-461.
    17. Appelt, Silvia, 2010. "Authorized Generic Entry prior to Patent Expiry: Reassessing Incentives for Independent Generic Entry," Discussion Papers in Economics 11476, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    18. Iván Moreno-Torres & Jaume Puig-Junoy & Joan-Ramon Borrell, 2009. "Generic Entry into the Regulated Spanish Pharmaceutical Market," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(4), pages 373-388, June.
    19. Leopold, Christine & Mantel-Teeuwisse, Aukje Katja & Vogler, Sabine & de Joncheere, Kees & Laing, Richard Ogilvie & Leufkens, Hubert G.M., 2013. "Is Europe still heading to a common price level for on-patent medicines? An exploratory study among 15 Western European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 209-216.
    20. Crowe, Bronwyn & Lindner, Bob & Llewellyn, Rick, 2006. "The benefits and beneficiaries of “public” investment in herbicide use research and development," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174476, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    21. Olga Bruyaka & Hanko Zeitzmann & Isabelle Chalamon & Richard Wokutch & Pooja Thakur, 2013. "Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Orphan Drug Development: Insights from the US and the EU Biopharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 45-65, September.

    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:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:1:p:63-82. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.