ReviewPharmacoEconomics2008
Having your cake and eating it: office of fair trading proposal for funding new drugs to benefit patients and innovative companies.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of generic reference pricing on medicine cost in Slovenia: a retrospective study.Croatian medical journal · 2018Article
- Comprehensive taxonomy and worldwide trends in pharmaceutical policies in relation to country income status.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Potential to enhance the prescribing of generic drugs in patients with mental health problems in austria; implications for the future.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2012Article
- Use of Generics-A Critical Cost Containment Measure for All Healthcare Professionals in Europe?Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010Review
- Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers.BMC health services research · 2010Review
- Impact of European pharmaceutical price regulation on generic price competition: a review.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Review
- Policies to enhance prescribing efficiency in europe: findings and future implications.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2010Article
- Update of recent reforms in Germany to enhance the quality and efficiency of prescribing of proton pump inhibitors and lipid-lowering drugs.PharmacoEconomics · 2009Article
- Recent national and regional drug reforms in Sweden: implications for pharmaceutical companies in Europe.PharmacoEconomics · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are insufficient resources in the UK to fund all new technologies and new indications approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diverting funding from existing sources will have a detrimental effect on the provision of other priority services. The UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) recently suggested a value-based pricing approach that appears workable but has generated considerable debate. Their proposal of a 25% premium for the originator product once generics are available is more generous than seen in a number of other European countries, where typically only the lowest priced product is reimbursed. The OFT proposal for a maximum 50% premium for patent-protected products, versus the prices of generics in a class or related classes, is also more generous than the proposed reforms for the pricing of proton pump inhibitors in Sweden or current reforms in Germany. In our opinion, the OFT proposals are persuasive and in accordance with the reforms seen in other European countries, and therefore should be adopted. The alternatives to fully funding new drugs or new indications as approved by NICE are either tightening the cost per QALY threshold, giving NICE an annual national budget to fund its advice alongside suggested areas for disinvestment, proactively switching patients from high-cost brand-name drugs to generics, or further delaying funding for new drugs and new indications approved by NICE. The majority of these suggestions are not in the best interests of patients or innovative pharmaceutical companies seeking to reap the rewards of their efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18198930What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.