ReviewJournal of market access & health policy2023
Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia: comparative analysis.
Review in Journal of market access & health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Managed Entry Agreements for Pharmaceutical Products in Three Maghreb Countries: Payer and Supplier Perspectives.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Good Practices for Health Technology Assessment Guideline Development: A Report of the Health Technology Assessment International, HTAsiaLink, and ISPOR Special Task Force.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- INEAS's Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vemurafenib: Paving the Way for Value-Based Pricing in Tunisia.Journal of market access & health policy · 2024Article
- Investigating the availability, affordability, and market dynamics of innovative oncology drugs in Morocco: an original report.International journal for equity in health · 2024Review
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
Objectives: In this paper, we outline and compare pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies for in-patent prescription medicines in three Maghreb countries, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, and explore possible improvements in their pricing and reimbursement systems. Methods: The evidence informing this study comes from both an extensive literature review and a primary data collection from experts in the three studied countries. Key findings: Twenty-six local experts where interviewed Intervieweesincluded ministry officials, representatives of national regulatory authorities, health insurance organizations, pharmaceutical procurement departments and agencies, academics, private pharmaceutical-sector actors, and associations. Results show that External Reference Pricing (ERP) is the dominant pricing method for in-patent medicines in the studied countries. Value-based pricing through Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a new concept, recently used in Tunisia to help the reimbursement decision of some in-patent medicines but not yet used in the pricing of innovative medicines in the studied countries. Reimbursement decision is mainly based on negotiations set on Internal Reference Pricing (IRP). Conclusion: Whereas each country has its specific regulations, there are many similarities in the pricing and reimbursement policies of in-patent medicines in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. The ERP was found to be the dominant method to inform pricing and reimbursement decisions of in-patent medicines. Countries in the region can focus on the development of explicit value assessment systems and minimize their dependence on ERP over the longer-term. In this context, HTA will rely on local assessment of the evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.