Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 271–276 | Cite as

The Pros and Cons of a Single ‘Euro—Price’ For Drugs

  • Adrian Towse
Current Opinion Single Euro-Price For Drugs

Summary

Parallel trade in pharmaceuticals has become a major European Union policy issue with several ‘solutions’ being considered by the European Commission, Member State governments and the pharmaceutical industry in the ‘Bangemann Process’. This paper discusses the issues from an economic and public policy perspective — considering the economic cases for differential pricing and for ‘Euro—prices’, concluding that the economic case for parallel trade — to achieve convergence of prices — is not applicable to pharmaceuticals. It argues that health economic evaluation is not an appropriate tool to set ‘Euro—prices’ because of differences in clinical practice and in resource use and cost across countries. Pricing rules should reflect local willingness to pay for innovation. It concludes, however, that in the absence of policy changes there is a strong likelihood of companies refusing to supply new innovative products at low prices to traditionally ‘low price’ countries in order to avoid parallel trade undermining prices obtained elsewhere in Europe, with significant implications for the welfare of patients in those countries.

Keywords

European Union Adis International Limited Gross Domestic Product European Union Country Price Differential 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rovira J. Are national drug expenditure control policies compatible with a single European market? Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 Suppl. 2: 4–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Senior I. Is Parallel trade in medicines compatible with the single European market? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2 (1): 70–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Round Table (European Commission, Member States and the pharmaceutical industry). Completing the single market. Proceedings of the IMS International Meeting; 1997 Dec 9; FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Danzon P. Trade and price differentials for pharmaceuticals: policy options. London: Office of Health Economics, 1997Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    UK Department of Health. PPRS report to parliament. London: UK Department of Health, 1996Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hale D, Towse A. Value of the pharmaceutical industry to the UK economy. London: Office of Health Economics, 1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danzon P. The uses and abuses of international price comparisons. In: Helms R, editor. Competitive strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grabowski H, Vernon J. Returns on new drug introductions in the 1980s. J Health Econ 1994; 13: 383–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    US Office of Technology Assessment. Pharmaceutical R & D: costs, risks and rewards. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Directorate Generale for Economic and Financial Affairs. The economics of 1992: European economy no. 35. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1988 MarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Economists Advisory Group. The ‘cost of non—Europe’ in the pharmaceutical industry: research on the ‘cost of non—Europe’, basic findings. Vol. 15. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1988Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danzon P, Percy A. The effects of price regulation on productivity in pharmaceuticals [working paper]. Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1996Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danzon P. Trade and price differentials for pharmaceuticals: policy options. London: Office of Health Economics, 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drummond M, Jonsson B, Rutten F. The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy 1997; 40: 199–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Towse A. Overview. In: Towse A, editor. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: can the UK learn from Australia and Canada? London: Office of Health Economics, 1997Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilisation? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146 (4): 473–81Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drummond M, Bloom B, Carrin G, et al. Issues in the crossnational assessment of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8 (4): 671–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menzin J, Oster G, Davies L, et al. A multinational economic evaluation of rhDNase in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (1): 52–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brittan L. Brittan speech on pharmaceutical pricing [press release]. Brussels: European Commission, 1992 Dec 2Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merck v. Primecrown. Hearing on C−267/95 and C−268/95. Before the European Court of Justice. Brussels, 1996 Dec 5Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kanavos P. A prospective view on European Pharmaceutical Research and development: policy options to reduce Fragmentation and increase competitiveness. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (2): 181–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Towse
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of Health EconomicsEngland

Personalised recommendations