Parallel Importation of Pharmaceuticals in Finland

Effects on Markets and Expenditures
  • Ismo LinnosmaaEmail author
  • Taru Karhunen
  • Ilkka Vohlonen
Original Research Article


Background: Parallel importation of pharmaceuticals is illegal in many countries. In the European Union it is allowed, as it is consistent with the principles of free trade and the community exhaustion of intellectual property rights. Parallel importation is assumed to affect pharmaceutical expenditures in two ways. First, parallel imported pharmaceuticals are typically priced lower than brand-name pharmaceuticals, which may reduce pharmaceutical expenditures. Secondly, parallel imported pharmaceuticals may trigger price competition, which might also reduce prices of brand-name products and pharmaceutical expenditures.

Objective: To measure reductions in pharmaceutical expenditures due to the entry of parallel imported pharmaceuticals in Finland.

Methods: Both realized reductions in expenditures (realized savings) and potential reductions (potential savings) were estimated. Savings were estimated using a method that measures differences in pharmaceutical expenditures when prices of pharmaceutical products differ as a result of price differences between parallel imported and brand-name pharmaceuticals (direct effect) and the effect of parallel imported products on the prices of brand-name products (competitive effect). Potential savings were estimated under different assumptions concerning the price development of pharmaceutical products. It was assumed that prices of brand-name pharmaceuticals would decrease either by 22% or 10% as a result of competition from parallel imports.

Results: Realized savings due to parallel importation were approximately €294 000 in the years 1998–2001. The savings remained low since parallel imports have not intensified price competition in Finland. Potential savings for the period between March 2000 and March 2001 were estimated to vary in the range of €3.4–10.2 million depending on the assumptions made on the price development of pharmaceutical products.


Pharmaceutical Product Wholesale Price Price Competition Price Difference Potential Saving 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Glynn D. Reimbursement for new health technologies, breakthrough pharmaceuticals as a 20th century challenge. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18(1): 59–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Danzon P. The economics of parallel trade. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998; 13: 293–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Persson U, Anell A, Persson M. Parallelhandel med lakemedel i Sverige-en ekonomisk analysis. Lund: Institut för Hälso-och sjukvärdsekonomi, 2001Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varian H. Microeconomic analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Norton & Company, 1992Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pauly M. The economics of moral hazard. Am Econ Rev. 1968; 58: 533–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Danzon PM. Pharmaceutical price regulation, national policies versus global interests. Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 1997Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maskus K, Chen Y. Vertical price control and parallel imports: theory and evidence [policy research working papers]. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group, 2000Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganslandt M, Maskus KE. Parallel imports of pharmaceutical products in the European Union. Working paper No. 546. Stockholm: IUI The Research Institute of Industrial Economics, 2001Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    COM(98)588 final. Commission communication on the single market in pharmaceuticals. Brussels: Publications Office, 1998 NovGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lääkelaki 395/1987 (Law on medicines). In: Ranta H, editor. Sociaali-ja terveydenhuoltolainsåådåbtö, lakimiesliiton kustannus. Helsinki: Talentum, 2003Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hellerstein JK. The importance of the physician in the generic versus trade-name prescription decision. Rand J Econ. 1998; 29: 108–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coscelli A. The importance of doctors’ and patients’ preferences in the prescription decision. J Ind Econ. 2000; 68: 349–69Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lundin D. Moral hazard in physician prescription behavior. J Health Econ. 2000; 19: 639–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johannesson M, Lundin D. The impact of physician preferences and patient habits on the diffusion of new drugs. SSE/EFI [working papers series in economics and finance No. 460]. Stolkholm: Stockholm School of Economics, 2002 JunGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lääkkeiden toimittaminen (Regulations on Dispensing). 1999/4 LL Määräys. (Regulations on Dispensing 1999/4). Helsinki: Lääkelaitos, 1999: 14Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Impediments to parallel trade in pharmaceuticals within the European Community. Final report prepared for DGIV of the European Commission by REMIT Consultants. London: REMIT Consultants, 1991 May. EEC reference 4/90/06/01.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Päätös (Judgement) 10.09.1999/2461. Korkeinmman hallinto-oikeus vuosikirja (The annual book of the Supreme Administrative Court) 1999: 52. Helsiniki: KHO, 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Pharmacy, Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and EconomicsUniversity of KuopioKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations