Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research

The legal imperative for treating rare disorders

Authors: Hanna I Hyry, Jonathan CP Roos, Jeremy Manuel, Timothy M Cox

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Life-saving orphan drugs are some of the most expensive medicines. European Union governments aim to accommodate their provision within stretched healthcare budgets but face pressure to reduce funding of such treatments. Patients struggle to retain or gain access to them as their special status is questioned, causing distress and in some cases, fears of premature death. In the UK and EU reimbursement and pricing model of drugs, and orphan drugs in particular, is being re-evaluated.

Methods

Using the United Kingdom as a case study we present, for the first time, legal arguments which compel governments to provide orphan medicinal products. These include (i) disability legislation, (ii) national and organisational constitutions, (iii) judicial review, (iv) tort law and (v) human rights legislation. We then address directly potential objections to our analysis and counter arguments which aim to limit provision of orphan drugs to the intended patient recipients.

Results

We demonstrate that a compelling case can be made that the law demands the treatment of orphan diseases.

Conclusions

Our legal framework will assist doctors and patients in ensuring the continued provision of treatments despite significant economic pressure to reduce funding. These legal avenues will empower stakeholders in drafting funding guidelines throughout the EU. The legal right to treatment extends beyond rare diseases and our analysis may therefore affect allocation of healthcare budgets throughout the EU.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Testori Coggi P, Director General of the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers of the European Commission: Orphan Products and Rare Disease Therapies. Brussels: 6th European Conference on Rare Diseases & Orphan Products; 2012. Testori Coggi P, Director General of the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers of the European Commission: Orphan Products and Rare Disease Therapies. Brussels: 6th European Conference on Rare Diseases & Orphan Products; 2012.
5.
go back to reference Sheldon T: Dutch doctors call for EU evaluation of cost effectiveness of high cost orphan drugs. BMJ. 2012, 345: e5461. 10.1136/bmj.e5461.PubMedCrossRef Sheldon T: Dutch doctors call for EU evaluation of cost effectiveness of high cost orphan drugs. BMJ. 2012, 345: e5461. 10.1136/bmj.e5461.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hawkes N: Why is the press so nasty to NICE?. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1906. 10.1136/bmj.a1906.CrossRef Hawkes N: Why is the press so nasty to NICE?. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1906. 10.1136/bmj.a1906.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Anand G: Uncertain miracle—a biotech drug extends a life, but at what price?. Wall Street Journal. 2005. Anand G: Uncertain miracle—a biotech drug extends a life, but at what price?. Wall Street Journal. 2005.
10.
go back to reference Jack A, Hope K: Greek crisis gets under skin of vulnerable. Financial Times. 2012. Jack A, Hope K: Greek crisis gets under skin of vulnerable. Financial Times. 2012.
14.
go back to reference Roos J, Hyry H, Cox TM: Orphan drug pricing may warrant a competition law investigation. BMJ. 2010, 341: c6471. 10.1136/bmj.c6471.PubMedCrossRef Roos J, Hyry H, Cox TM: Orphan drug pricing may warrant a competition law investigation. BMJ. 2010, 341: c6471. 10.1136/bmj.c6471.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Eisai Ltd v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2007, EWHC 1941. Eisai Ltd v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2007, EWHC 1941.
28.
go back to reference Ac v West Primary Care Trust. 2010, EWHC 1162. Ac v West Primary Care Trust. 2010, EWHC 1162.
29.
go back to reference R (on the application of W) v Birmingham City Council. 2011, EWHC 1147 (Admin). R (on the application of W) v Birmingham City Council. 2011, EWHC 1147 (Admin).
30.
go back to reference R (on the application of Chavda and others) v Harrow London Borough Council. 2007, EWHC 3064 (Admin):para 40 (concerning access by elderly disabled persons to community care). R (on the application of Chavda and others) v Harrow London Borough Council. 2007, EWHC 3064 (Admin):para 40 (concerning access by elderly disabled persons to community care).
31.
go back to reference Gericke CA, Riesberg A, Busse R:Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. J Med Ethics. 2005, 31: 164-168. 10.1136/jme.2003.007138.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Gericke CA, Riesberg A, Busse R:Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. J Med Ethics. 2005, 31: 164-168. 10.1136/jme.2003.007138.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School. 2006, UKHL 15:para 68. R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School. 2006, UKHL 15:para 68.
33.
go back to reference R (on the application of De Almeida) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. 2012, EWHC 1082. R (on the application of De Almeida) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. 2012, EWHC 1082.
34.
go back to reference Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation. 1948, 1 KB 223. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation. 1948, 1 KB 223.
35.
go back to reference Manchester City Council v Pinnock. 2011, UKSC 6:paras 45 to 73. Manchester City Council v Pinnock. 2011, UKSC 6:paras 45 to 73.
36.
go back to reference R (on the application of Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust and another. 2006, EWCA Civ:392. R (on the application of Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust and another. 2006, EWCA Civ:392.
37.
go back to reference Keenan v United Kingdom. 2001, 33 E.H.R.R. 913:para 11, applying İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII. Keenan v United Kingdom. 2001, 33 E.H.R.R. 913:para 11, applying İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII.
38.
go back to reference R (on the application of (HA) (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. 2012, EWHC 979 (Admin). The Court accepted that inter alia absence of “appropriate medical treatment” to alleviate the detainee’s mental illness breached Article 3 (paras 179 and 181). R (on the application of (HA) (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. 2012, EWHC 979 (Admin). The Court accepted that inter alia absence of “appropriate medical treatment” to alleviate the detainee’s mental illness breached Article 3 (paras 179 and 181).
39.
go back to reference R (on the application of D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. 2012, Unreported. R (on the application of D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. 2012, Unreported.
40.
go back to reference R (on the application of Booker) v NHS Oldham. 2010, EWHC 2593. R (on the application of Booker) v NHS Oldham. 2010, EWHC 2593.
41.
go back to reference R (on the application of Otley) v Barking and Dagenham NHS Primary Care Trust. 2007, EWHC 1927, especially para 26 which sets out further reasons for granting judicial review. R (on the application of Otley) v Barking and Dagenham NHS Primary Care Trust. 2007, EWHC 1927, especially para 26 which sets out further reasons for granting judicial review.
42.
go back to reference Regina v North West Lancashire Health Authority (Ex parte A, D and G). 2000, 1 WLR 977. Regina v North West Lancashire Health Authority (Ex parte A, D and G). 2000, 1 WLR 977.
43.
go back to reference R (on the application of Oliver Leslie Burke) v the General Medical Council. 2005, EWCA Civ 1003. R (on the application of Oliver Leslie Burke) v the General Medical Council. 2005, EWCA Civ 1003.
44.
45.
go back to reference Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, Sweet & Maxwell 20 edition. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, Sweet & Maxwell 20 edition.
46.
47.
go back to reference Cassidy v Ministry of Health. 1951, 2 KB 343. Cassidy v Ministry of Health. 1951, 2 KB 343.
48.
go back to reference Wilsher v Essex AHA. 1987, 1 QB 730 (hospital had only four ventilators and none was made available to a baby who needed one: no negligence in the health authority merely because it did not have more at its disposal). Wilsher v Essex AHA. 1987, 1 QB 730 (hospital had only four ventilators and none was made available to a baby who needed one: no negligence in the health authority merely because it did not have more at its disposal).
49.
go back to reference Nitecki v Poland. ECHR. Application 65653/01. Nitecki v Poland. ECHR. Application 65653/01.
51.
go back to reference (Case 87/1997/871/1083) 1999. Osman v UK. 1 FLR 193. (Case 87/1997/871/1083) 1999. Osman v UK. 1 FLR 193.
52.
go back to reference McCabe C, Stafinski T, Menon D: Is it time to revisit orphan drug policies?. BMJ. 2010, 341: c4777. 10.1136/bmj.c4777.PubMedCrossRef McCabe C, Stafinski T, Menon D: Is it time to revisit orphan drug policies?. BMJ. 2010, 341: c4777. 10.1136/bmj.c4777.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference United States Congress: Orphan drug reauthorization: hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session on H.R. 4160, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the Orphan Drug Act to revise the provisions of such acts relating to orphan drugs. Washington; 1994: 2. United States Congress: Orphan drug reauthorization: hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session on H.R. 4160, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the Orphan Drug Act to revise the provisions of such acts relating to orphan drugs. Washington; 1994: 2.
56.
go back to reference R v Cambridge Health Authority, Ex parte B. 1995, 1 WLR 898. R v Cambridge Health Authority, Ex parte B. 1995, 1 WLR 898.
57.
go back to reference R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan. 2000, 2 WLR 622. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan. 2000, 2 WLR 622.
58.
go back to reference Dunoyer M, GlaxoSmithKline: Value & Specificity of Rare Diseases Business Model. Brussels: 6th European Conference on Rare Diseases & Orphan Products; 2012. Dunoyer M, GlaxoSmithKline: Value & Specificity of Rare Diseases Business Model. Brussels: 6th European Conference on Rare Diseases & Orphan Products; 2012.
60.
go back to reference National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations. 2000. National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations. 2000.
61.
62.
go back to reference Weale A, Clark S: Co-payments in the NHS: an analysis of the normative arguments. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2010, 5: 225-246. 10.1017/S1744133109990211.CrossRef Weale A, Clark S: Co-payments in the NHS: an analysis of the normative arguments. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2010, 5: 225-246. 10.1017/S1744133109990211.CrossRef
63.
64.
go back to reference R (on the application of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust. 2011, EWHC 2011:895 (Admin). R (on the application of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust. 2011, EWHC 2011:895 (Admin).
Metadata
Title
The legal imperative for treating rare disorders
Authors
Hanna I Hyry
Jonathan CP Roos
Jeremy Manuel
Timothy M Cox
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-8-135

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2013 Go to the issue