Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impediments to the diffusion of innovative medicines in Europe

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pharmaceutical industry has developed many innovative medicines, which are able to extend the life expectancy of patients to increase their quality of life and often to reduce expenditures in the health care sector as a whole. Although these medicines are available in principle for all eligible patients throughout Europe, not everyone receives adequate treatment. There is a huge difference between a possible optimal treatment and the treatment delivered to the patient. In some cases patients are not treated at all; in some cases they only receive outdated medicines (e.g. with lower effectiveness and/or more severe sideeffects); and in some cases the prescribed dosages of the innovative drugs are too low to be effective. This study gives an overview of the shortfalls in provision of state-of-the-art medicines in selected European countries for about 20 of the most relevant diseases.

The following five different groups of factors can be identified as leading to this insufficient diffusion of medicines and are discussed in this text: (i) patient-related factors; (ii) healthcare professional-related factors; (iii) industry-related factors; (iv) system-related (long-term) factors; and (v) policy-related (short-term) factors. It must be clear that these shortages are not isolated cases but general trends in Europe, which have to be discussed in public.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table 1
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. LEGOS. Université Paris-Dauphine, Novembre 2000

  2. Lichtenberg F. Do (more and better) drugs keep people out of hospitals? Washington, DC: American Economic Association, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lichtenberg F. The effect of pharmaceutical utilisation and innovation on hospitalisation and mortality. Working paper 5418, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  4. Health Econ AG. Produktivitätsanalyse des Arzneimitteleinsatzes in Deutschland, Basel, März 2000

  5. Frech T, Miller R. The productivity of health care and pharmaceuticals: An international comparison. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lichtenberg F. Are the benefits of newer drugs worth their cost? Evidence from the 1996 MEPS. Health Affairs 2001; 20: 5

    Google Scholar 

  7. Horn SD et al. The managed care outcomes project, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schöffski O. Diffusion of medicines in Europe, Burgdorf, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  9. Psyma GmbH (Working Party for Psychological Market Analysis), Nuremberg

  10. Konietzko N, Fabel H. Pulmonary White Paper, Stuttgart. 2000

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pfeil T et al. Sozioökonomische Relevanz akuter Exacerbationen der chronischen Bronchitis in der BRD: eine repräsentative Krankheitskostenstudie, Institut für Empirische Gesundheitsökonomie

  12. Lewin Group. Value of medicines review database. Study for the Pharmaceutical Partners for Better Healthcare, March 1999

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lepine J-P, Gastpar M, Mendlewitz J, Tylee A. Depression in the community: The first pan-European study DEPRES (Depression Research in European Society). International Clinical Pschopharmacology, 1997; 12: 19–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Institute of Health Statistics (IMS)

  15. Silvera L, Simon D, Trutt B, Blanchon B, Parmentier M, Hecquard P. Description des diabétiques de type 2 d’Ile de France âgés de 70 ans au plus, Diabetes Metab, 2000; 26 (suppl. 6): 69–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. CODE 2 study (Costs of diabetes in Europe, type 2), 1999

  17. Swingler RJ, Davidson DL, Roberts RC, Moulding F. The cost of epilepsy in patients attending a specialist epilepsy service, Seizure, 1994; 3: 115–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ministére de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité. Plan National de Lutte contre l’Hépatite C 1999–2002

  19. Bellis MA, McCullagh J, Thomson R, Regan D, Syed Q, Kelly T. Inequality in funding for AIDS across England threatens regional services, Br Med J 1997; 315: 950–1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. National Kidney Federation. Patient satisfaction study, London, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  21. Estimation sur la base des données de ventes (GERS)

  22. Avis de la Commission de la transparence BETAFERON, AFSSAPS, 05 mai 1999

  23. Based on SE Wales Breast Cancer Guidelines

  24. Krappweis J, Rentsch A, Schwarz U, Krobot KJ, Kirch W. Outpatient costs of osteoporosis in a national insurance population. Clinical Therapeutics 1999; 21 (1): 2001–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pollhäne W, Minne, HW. Diagnostik und Therapie der Osteoporose. Notfall Medizin 36: 39–43

  26. Larue F, Colleau SM, Brasseut L, Cleeland CS. Multicenter study of cancer pain and its treatment in France. BMJ 1995; 310:, 1034–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Larue F, Colleau SM, Fontaine A, Brasseur L. Oncologists and the primary care physicians’ attitude toward pain control and morphine prescribing in France. Cancer 1995; 76: 2375–2382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ministére de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité. Plan triennal de lutte contre da douleur 1998–2000

  29. Study with 686 psychiatrists in nine European countries. Cohn and Wolf Market Research Agency, 1999

  30. Institute of Medical Statistics (IMS Health), Die Helicobacter pylori-Eridikations-Therapie: Wie ist die aktuelle Situation in den deutschen Praxen, Frankfurt am Main, Februar 1999

  31. Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Veld C, Rutten G, Mokkink H. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: an observational study. British Medical Journal 1998; 317: 858–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Feachem RGA, Sekhri NK, White KL. Getting more for their dollar: a comparison of the NHS with California’s Kaiser Permanente. British Medical Journal 2002; 324: 135–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. LEGOS. Université Paris-Dauphine, Novembre 2000

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), Brussels, Belgium.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Gesundheitsmanagement, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403, Nürnberg, Germany

    Oliver Schöffski (Chair for Health Management)

Authors
  1. Oliver Schöffski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schöffski, O. Impediments to the diffusion of innovative medicines in Europe. Pharmacoeconomic 22 (Suppl 2), 51–64 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422002-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422002-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation