Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 3/2007

01-09-2007 | Original paper

Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison

Authors: Joshua Cohen, Laura Faden, Susan Predaris, Brian Young

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 3/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

We have identified eight sub-dimensions of patient access to pharmaceuticals: marketing approvals, time of marketing approval, coverage, cost sharing, conditions of reimbursement, speed from marketing approval to reimbursement, extent to which beneficiaries control choice of their drug benefit, and evenness of the availability of drugs to the population. For a sample of commonly used best-selling drugs in the United States (US), we measured these eight access sub-dimensions across four health systems: France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), and the US. Although the US approved between 15 and 18% more drugs than the other three countries, the US was slower than France and the UK to approve drugs licensed in all four countries. The percentage of drugs covered is approximately the same for all four countries. For covered drugs, we observe the least cost sharing by patients in the Netherlands. The Netherlands imposes conditions of reimbursement on a much larger percentage of drugs. France seems to be the slowest in respect of speed from marketing approval to reimbursement. The US is the most flexible in terms of the extent to which beneficiaries control their choice of drug benefit but it is the least universal in terms of evenness of the availability of drugs to the population. Our study confirms the frequently cited problems of access in European countries: lag between marketing approval and reimbursement, and inflexibility in respect of the extent to which beneficiaries control their choice of drug benefit. At the same time, our study confirms, qualitatively, different kinds of access problems in the US: relatively high patient cost sharing for pharmaceuticals, and wide variation in coverage.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Inpatient drugs may be subject to hospital budget caps.
 
2
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires manufacturers to pay a rebate to the Medicaid program. For brand-name drugs, the rebate is equal to the greater of 15.1% of the average price paid to a manufacturer for the drug and the difference between this price and the lowest price paid by any private-sector purchaser for the drug.
 
3
All direct federal purchasers of health care services, for example the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), can purchase drugs at prices listed in the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for pharmaceuticals. The VA negotiates FSS prices with manufacturers on the basis of the prices that manufacturers charge their most-favored commercial customers. These prices are usually up to 50% off of the average wholesale price.
 
4
We filled gaps in our database of drug approvals by means of personal communications with officials at the respective drug-regulatory agencies.
 
5
Note that of the 100 drugs all four regulatory agencies approved 87 with the same active ingredient, but only 79 with the same formulation and dosing in addition to same active ingredient.
 
6
Prior authorization requires that some drugs be pre-authorized before their being dispensed to be eligible for reimbursement.
 
7
Note, the IMS database does not take into account delays because of launch delays.
 
8
Personal communication [Lucy Betteron, NICE, October 10, 2005].
 
Literature
4.
go back to reference Cohen, J., Paquette, C., Cairns, C., Faden, L.: Comparing UK and US pharmacoeconomic assessments: case study of 38 NICE technology appraisals. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 5(3), 1–11 (2006)CrossRef Cohen, J., Paquette, C., Cairns, C., Faden, L.: Comparing UK and US pharmacoeconomic assessments: case study of 38 NICE technology appraisals. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 5(3), 1–11 (2006)CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Danzon, P.: Welfare effects of supplementary insurance: a comment. J. Health Econ. 21, 923–926 (2002)CrossRef Danzon, P.: Welfare effects of supplementary insurance: a comment. J. Health Econ. 21, 923–926 (2002)CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Danzon, P., Wang, R., Wang, L.: The impact of price regulation on the launch delay of new drugs—evidence from 25 major markets in the 1990s. Health Econ. 14, 269–292 (2005)CrossRef Danzon, P., Wang, R., Wang, L.: The impact of price regulation on the launch delay of new drugs—evidence from 25 major markets in the 1990s. Health Econ. 14, 269–292 (2005)CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hoadley, J.: Cost containment strategies for prescription drugs – assessing the evidence in the literature, March 2005, http://www.kff.org, accessed on January 12, 2006 Hoadley, J.: Cost containment strategies for prescription drugs – assessing the evidence in the literature, March 2005, http://​www.​kff.​org, accessed on January 12, 2006
15.
go back to reference Hurwitz, B.: Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 318, 661–664 (1999) Hurwitz, B.: Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 318, 661–664 (1999)
17.
go back to reference Lancry, P., et al.: Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: healthcare payer perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 19(2), 39–47 (2001)CrossRef Lancry, P., et al.: Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: healthcare payer perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 19(2), 39–47 (2001)CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Le Pen, C.: Drug pricing and reimbursement in France: towards a new model? Pharmacoeconomics 10(Suppl. 3), 26–36 (1996)CrossRef Le Pen, C.: Drug pricing and reimbursement in France: towards a new model? Pharmacoeconomics 10(Suppl. 3), 26–36 (1996)CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mossialos, E., Walley, T., Mrazek, M. (eds.) Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: an overview, striving for efficiency, equity, and quality. Open University Press, London (2004) Mossialos, E., Walley, T., Mrazek, M. (eds.) Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: an overview, striving for efficiency, equity, and quality. Open University Press, London (2004)
20.
go back to reference Neumann, P.: Why don’t Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis. Am. J. Manag. Care 10(5), 308–312 (2004) Neumann, P.: Why don’t Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis. Am. J. Manag. Care 10(5), 308–312 (2004)
24.
go back to reference Pronk, M., Bonsel, G.: De budgetbeheersende functie van het geneesmiddelenvergoedingssysteem, 10 jaar GVS. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Geneeskunde. 146(37) (2002) Pronk, M., Bonsel, G.: De budgetbeheersende functie van het geneesmiddelenvergoedingssysteem, 10 jaar GVS. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Geneeskunde. 146(37) (2002)
26.
42.
go back to reference See https://online.epocrates.com, accessed on May 31, 2006 See https://​online.​epocrates.​com, accessed on May 31, 2006
44.
go back to reference See https://online.epocrates.com, accessed on May 29, 2006 See https://​online.​epocrates.​com, accessed on May 29, 2006
51.
go back to reference Stolk, E., Brouwer, W., Busschbach, J.: Rationalizing rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy 59(1), 53–63 (2002)CrossRef Stolk, E., Brouwer, W., Busschbach, J.: Rationalizing rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy 59(1), 53–63 (2002)CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Syrett, K.: A technocratic fix to the “legitimacy problem”? The Blair Government and Health Care Rationing in the United Kingdom. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 28, 715–746 (2003)CrossRef Syrett, K.: A technocratic fix to the “legitimacy problem”? The Blair Government and Health Care Rationing in the United Kingdom. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 28, 715–746 (2003)CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Towse, A.: The efficient use of pharmaceuticals: does Europe have any lessons for a Medicare drug benefit? Health Aff. 22(3), 42–45 (2003)CrossRef Towse, A.: The efficient use of pharmaceuticals: does Europe have any lessons for a Medicare drug benefit? Health Aff. 22(3), 42–45 (2003)CrossRef
55.
go back to reference Varkevisser, M., van der Geest, S.: “Price Competition Among Dutch Sickness Funds”, Erasmus University Research Centre For Economic Policy Research Memorandum 0112, (2001). See http://www.ocfeb.nl, accessed on March 7, 2006 Varkevisser, M., van der Geest, S.: “Price Competition Among Dutch Sickness Funds”, Erasmus University Research Centre For Economic Policy Research Memorandum 0112, (2001). See http://​www.​ocfeb.​nl, accessed on March 7, 2006
56.
go back to reference Whalen, J.: Britain stirs outcry by weighing benefits of drugs versus price. The Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2005 Whalen, J.: Britain stirs outcry by weighing benefits of drugs versus price. The Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2005
Metadata
Title
Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison
Authors
Joshua Cohen
Laura Faden
Susan Predaris
Brian Young
Publication date
01-09-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 3/2007
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-006-0028-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2007

The European Journal of Health Economics 3/2007 Go to the issue