Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30396361›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2018

The European challenges of funding orphan medicinal products.

Márta Szegedi, Tamás Zelei, Francis Arickx, Anna Bucsics, Emanuelle Cohn-Zanchetta, Jurij Fürst, Maria Kamusheva, Pawel Kawalec, Guenka Petrova, Juraj Slaby and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Novel approach to decision making for orphan drugs.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Márta SzegediInstitute of Genomic Medicine and Rare Disorders, Semmelweis University, H 1083 Tömő u, Budapest, 25-29, Hungary. szegedi.marta@med.semmelweis-univ.hu.
Tamás ZeleiDepartment of Health Policy and Health Economics, Institute of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/A 1117, Budapest, 361, Hungary.
Francis ArickxNational Institute for Health and Disability Insurance of Belgium, Av. de Tervuerenlaan, 211, 1150, Brussels, Belgium.
Anna BucsicsMechanism of Coordinated Access to Orphan Medicinal Products (MoCA), 1150, Vienna, Austria.
Emanuelle Cohn-ZanchettaFrench National Authority for Health, 5, avenue du Stade de France -, 93218, Saint-Denis, La Plaine Cedex, France.
Jurij FürstHealth Insurance Institute of Slovenia, Miklošičeva cesta 24, 1507, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Maria KamushevaDepartment of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria, Dunav str. 2, 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Pawel KawalecInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagellonian University, Medical College, 008 Grzegorzecka 20, 31-531, Kraków, Poland.
Guenka PetrovaDepartment of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria, Dunav str. 2, 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Juraj SlabyState Institute for Drug Control, Šrobárova 48, 100 41, 10, Praha, Czech Republic.
Ewa StawowczykInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagellonian University, Medical College, 008 Grzegorzecka 20, 31-531, Kraków, Poland.
Milan VocelkaState Institute for Drug Control, Šrobárova 48, 100 41, 10, Praha, Czech Republic.
Ingrid Zechmeister-KossDepartment of Health, Economics, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute, Garnisongasse 7/20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria.
Zoltán KalóDepartment of Health Policy and Health Economics, Institute of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/A 1117, Budapest, 361, Hungary.
Mária Judit MolnárInstitute of Genomic Medicine and Rare Disorders, Semmelweis University, H 1083 Tömő u, Budapest, 25-29, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFunding of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is an increasing challenge in the European Union (EU).

objectivesTo identify the different methods for public funding of OMPs in order to map the availability for rare disease patients, as well as to compare the public expenditures on OMPs in 8 EU member states.

methodsInformation on the reimbursement status of 83 OMPs was collected in 8 countries by distinguishing standard and special reimbursements. In two consecutive years, the total public expenditures on OMPs were calculated by using annual EUR exchange rates. Annual total public expenditures were calculated per capita, and as a proportion of GDP, total public pharmaceutical and healthcare budgets. Differences between countries were compared by calculating the deviations from the average spending of countries.

resultsIn 2015 29.4-92.8% of the 83 OMPs were available with any kind of public reimbursement in participant countries including special reimbursement on an individual basis. In Austria, Belgium and France more OMPs were accessible for patients with public reimbursement than in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Standard reimbursement through retail pharmacies and/or hospitals was applied from 0 to 41% of OMPs. The average annual total public expenditure ranged between 1.4-23.5 €/capita in 2013 and 2014. Higher income countries spent more OMPs in absolute terms. Participant countries spent 0.018-0.066% of their GDPs on funding OMPs. Average expenditures on OMPs were ranged between 2.25-6.51% of the public pharmaceutical budget, and 0.44-0.96% of public healthcare expenditures.

conclusionsStandard and special reimbursement techniques play different roles in participant countries. The number of accessible OMPs indicated an equity gap between Eastern and Western Europe. The spending on OMPs as a proportion of GDP, public pharmaceutical and healthcare expenditure was not higher in lower income countries, which indicates substantial differences in patient access to OMPs in favour of higher-income countries. Equity in access for patients with rare diseases is an important policy objective in each member state of the EU; however, equity in access should be harmonized at the European level.

Indexed as

Drug CostsEuropeEuropean UnionHealth ExpendituresHumansOrphan Drug ProductionRare DiseasesEquityEuropean UnionFundingOrphan medicinal productsPatient accessReimbursement

Identifiers

PMID30396361
PMCPMC6219168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.