US states want to buy cheap drugs from Canada—and the FDA says yes after three year delay

Carolyn Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2983

2024-01-09

BMJ

Abstract:Five US states want to import drugs, taking advantage of Canada’s cheaper products. Carolyn Brown asks whether this will help Americans, hurt Canadians, or be just another sign of the US failing to control drug costs

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The International Pharmaceutical Market as a Source of Low-Cost Prescription Drugs for U.S. Patients

Aaron S. Kesselheim,Niteesh K. Choudhry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-8-200804150-00006

IF: 39.2

2008-04-15

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:In response to increasing prescription drug costs, more U.S. patients and policymakers are importing less-expensive pharmaceutical products from other countries. Large-scale prescription drug importation is currently illegal, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits individuals to bring in 90-day supplies of drugs for personal use. As patient use of foreign-bought drugs has increased, federal legislators have continued to debate the full legalization of importation. Three factors help guide whether U.S. patients and policymakers can rely on other countries as sources of imported prescription drugs: whether the safety of the product can be ensured, how the import price compares with domestic prices, and how importation might affect the exporting country's pharmaceutical market. In wealthier countries with active regulatory systems, drug safety can be adequately ensured, and brand-name products are usually less expensive than in the United States (although generic drugs may be more expensive). However, implementing large-scale importation can negatively impact the originating country's market and can diminish the long-term cost savings for U.S. consumers. In low- and middle-income countries, prices may be reduced for both brand-name and generic drugs, but the prevalence of unauthorized products on the market makes ensuring drug safety more difficult. It may be reasonable for individual U.S. consumers to purchase essential medicines from certain international markets, but the most effective way to decrease drug costs overall is the appropriate use of domestic generic drugs, which are available for almost every major therapeutic class.

medicine, general & internal
Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Xingxian Luo,Lin Huang,Xin Du,Yue Yang,Xufeng Lv,Xiaohong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00025-1

2024-01-01

Abstract:In 1992, in an effort to bring novel drugs to market more quickly and meet patient needs in a timely manner, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pioneered an accelerated approval initiative on the basis of surrogate endpoints that are reasonably predictive of clinical benefit for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases. 1 US Food and Drug AdministrationAccelerated approval program. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/accelerated-approval-programDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar By contrast to regular approval, accelerated approval requires post-market confirmatory clinical trials to establish the clinical benefit of the drug, then a decision is made as to whether the approval should be converted to a traditional approval or whether the drug should be withdrawn from the market. 2 US Food and Drug AdministrationExpedited programs for serious conditions––drugs and biologics. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/expedited-programs-serious-conditions-drugs-and-biologicsDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar In the past 3 years, this expedited pathway has attracted extensive criticism, including failure to complete confirmatory clinical trials in a timely manner, 3 Fashoyin-Aje LA Mehta GU Beaver JA Pazdur R The on- and off-ramps of oncology accelerated approval. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387: 1439-1442 Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar , 4 Gyawali B Kesselheim AS Ross JS The accelerated approval program for cancer drugs—finding the right balance. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389: 968-971 Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar use of surrogate endpoints (eg, progression-free survival) in confirmatory clinical trials, 5 Parikh RB Hubbard RA Wang E et al. Exposure to US cancer drugs with lack of confirmed benefit after US Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval. JAMA Oncol. 2023; 9: 567-569 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar and failure to withdraw drugs quickly from the markets when they have been shown to not have clinical benefit. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar Concerns have also been raised that cancer drugs given accelerated approval by the FDA could lead to difficult decisions in other countries, especially in some low-income and middle-income countries that do not have their own regulatory agencies or that have weak regulatory capacity. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar , 7 Cramer A Sørup FKH Christensen HR Petersen TS Karstoft K Withdrawn accelerated approvals for cancer indications in the USA: what is the marketing authorisation status in the EU?. Lancet Oncol. 2023; 24: e385-e394 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar
Affordability and availability of off-patent drugs in the United States-the case for importing from abroad: observational study

Ravi Gupta,Thomas J Bollyky,Matthew Cohen,Joseph S Ross,Aaron S Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k831

2018-03-19

BMJ

Abstract:Objectives: To evaluate whether off-patent prescription drugs at risk of sudden price increases or shortages in the United States are available from independent manufacturers approved in other well regulated settings around the world. Design: Observational study. Setting: Off-patent drugs in the USA and approved by the Food and Drug Administration, up to 10 April 2017. Study cohort: Novel tablet or capsule prescription drugs approved by the FDA since 1939 that were no longer protected by patents or other market exclusivity and had up to three generic versions. Main outcome measures: Number of additional manufacturers that had obtained approval from any of seven non-US regulators with similar standards (European Medicines Agency (European Union), HealthCanada (Canada), Therapeutic Goods Association (Australia), Medsafe (New Zealand), Swissmedic (Switzerland), Medicines Control Council (South Africa), and the Israel Health Ministry). Association with drug characteristics including US orphan drug designation for drugs treating rare diseases, World Health Organization essential medicine designation, treatment area, drug product complexity (that is, with attributes that could complicate establishing bioequivalence or manufacturing), and total Medicaid spending in 2015. Results: Of 170 eligible study drugs, more than half (109, 64%) had at least one manufacturer approved by a non-US regulator and 32 (19%) had four or more. Among 44 (26%) drugs with no FDA approved generic versions, 21 (48%) were available from at least one manufacturer approved by one of the seven non-US regulators, and two (5%) by four or more manufacturers. Across all drugs and regulators (including the FDA), 66 (39%) drugs were available from four or more total manufacturers. Of 109 drugs with at least one non-US regulator approved manufacturer, 12 (11%) were approved for patients with rare diseases and 29 (27%) were WHO designated essential medicines; only 12 (11%) were complex products that might be more complicated to import. The highest numbers of drugs were indicated for treating cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia (19, 17%); psychiatric disease (16, 15%); and infectious diseases (15, 14%). In 2015, Medicaid alone spent nearly US$700m (£508m; €570m) on generic drugs without adequate US competition that could have had a manufacturer approved by non-US peer regulatory agencies. Conclusion: In this study, more than half the off-patent drugs with no generic competition in the USA had at least one independent manufacturer approved by a non-US peer regulatory agency; slightly fewer than half had four or more total manufacturers. Facilitating US patient access to such manufacturers could help sustain affordable access to essential off-patent drugs.
When will Canada have national pharmacare?

Steven G Morgan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q887

2024-04-23

BMJ

Abstract:Canada's universal healthcare system, often referred to as Medicare, provides universal, public insurance for medically necessary physicians' services and hospital care, including inpatient prescription drugs.1 Prescriptions filled outside hospitals are not part of this system, forcing Canadians to rely on an incomplete and uncoordinated patchwork of public and private drug plans.2 That might soon change. Canada's federal government is debating a bill that would take the first step towards universal, public coverage of prescription drugs, legislation that has been long called for and often promised by government.3 But implementation of a "national pharmacare" system will face formidable opposition.Current system is problematicPresently, Canada's federal government, 10 provincial governments, and three territorial governments offer more than 100 different public drug plans for population subgroups that vary across the country.4 Each of these public drug plans has its own eligibility requirements and terms of coverage.3 Collectively, federal, provincial, and territorial drug plans finance...

medicine, general & internal
Generic Drugs in the United States: Policies to Address Pricing and Competition

Ravi Gupta,Nilay D. Shah,Joseph S. Ross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1314

2019-01-10

Abstract:The cost of prescription drugs in the United States continues to be a source of concern for patients, caregivers, and policymakers. Drug prices typically decline rapidly once generic drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and enter the market, but the past decade has witnessed rising costs and shortages of generic drugs. We describe the strategies used by brand-name manufacturers to undermine generic competition and the reasons underlying the price increases of off-patent drugs, some of which continue to lack any competition from generic versions, and others that have increased in price despite having generic versions. We discuss the FDA's role in addressing drug prices and promoting competition, including recent agency policies to modify its process of reviewing generic drug applications and to prioritize applications for off-patent drugs with few competitors. We also examine proposed policy solutions and research areas that could help address the price increases of off-patent drugs.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Common Pharmaceutical Price and Cost Controls in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany: Lessons for the United States

Marc A. Rodwin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731421996168

2021-03-09

International Journal of Health Services

Abstract:To identify pharmaceutical spending-control options for the United States, we analyzed the policies of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, which encourage drugmakers to undertake innovations that improve health while controlling spending. Their main strategies today include: using legislation to set default rules that increase the insurer's bargaining position, employing health technology assessment that measures cost-effectiveness or comparative effectiveness and caps the purchase or reimbursement price, setting a single maximum price for similar drugs (reference group pricing), capping prices near prices in other European countries (external reference pricing), prohibiting price increases, contracting to obtain discounts as sales volume rises, procuring drugs through competitive bids, and requiring manufacturers to pay rebates when spending exceeds a global budget. Each strategy addresses a distinct cause of high spending and supports overall goals. Most recent US reform proposals recommend incremental changes that would not address the major sources of high and increasing pharmaceutical prices. However, some US reform proposals resemble certain European strategies and could bring more significant change. US policymakers should consider adopting each of the strategies employed in these countries.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Differences in Drug Shortages in the US and Canada

Mina Tadrous,Katherine Callaway Kim,Inmaculada Hernandez,Scott D Rothenberger,Joshua W Devine,Tina B Hershey,Lisa M Maillart,Walid F Gellad,Katie J Suda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.17688

IF: 11.816

2024-10-31

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Drug shortages are a persistent public health issue that increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both the US and Canada follow similar regulatory standards and require reporting of drug-related supply chain issues that may result in shortages. However, it is unknown what proportion are associated with meaningful shortages (defined by a significant decrease in drug supply) and whether differences exist between Canada and the US. Objective: To compare how frequently reports of drug-related supply chain issues in the US vs Canada were associated with drug shortages. Design, setting, and participants: Longitudinal cross-sectional study conducted from January 2023 to March 2024 using drug-related reports of supply chain issues from 2017 to 2021 that were less than 180 days apart in Canada and the US. Shortages were assessed using data from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database, comprising 89% of US and 100% of Canadian drug purchases. Exposure: Country (Canada vs US), timing of report issuance (before vs after the COVID-19 pandemic), and characteristics of the supply chain prior to the reports of drug-related supply chain issues (including World Health Organization essential medicine status, Health Canada tier 3 medicine [moderate risk classification], whether there was sole-source manufacturing of the drug, the formulation, the price per unit, ≥20 years since drug approval, and the number of therapeutic alternatives). Main outcomes and measures: A drug shortage (a decrease of ≥33% in monthly purchased standardized drug units) within 12 months, relative to the average units purchased during the 6 months prior to the report of supply chain issues to a US or Canadian reporting system. Results: Among the 104 drug-related reports of supply chain issues in both countries, 49.0% (95% CI, 39.3%-59.7%) were associated with drug shortages in the US vs 34.0% (95% CI, 25.0%-45.0%) in Canada (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.79]). The lower risk of drug shortages in Canada vs the US was consistent before the COVID-19 pandemic (adjusted HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.30-0.75]) and after the pandemic (adjusted HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.15-0.66]). After combining reports of supply chain issues in both countries, the shortage risk was double for sole-sourced drugs (adjusted HR, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.57-4.24]) and nearly half for Canadian tier 3 medicines (moderate risk) (adjusted HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.98]). Conclusions and relevance: Drug-related reports of supply chain issues were 40% less likely to result in meaningful drug shortages in Canada compared with the US. These findings highlight the need for international cooperation between countries to curb the effects of drug shortages and improve resiliency of the supply chain for drugs.
Strategies to Help Patients Navigate High Prescription Drug Costs

Hussain S Lalani,Catherine S Hwang,Aaron S Kesselheim,Benjamin N Rome

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.17275

IF: 11.816

2024-10-21

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: In the US, many patients struggle to afford prescription drugs, leading to adverse health outcomes. To improve cost-related medication nonadherence, prescribers and clinical staff must understand how to assist patients in overcoming high prescription drug costs. Observations: We reviewed the benefits and limitations of 7 strategies to help patients afford prescription drugs: co-payment cards, patient assistance programs, pharmacy coupons, direct-to-consumer pharmacies, public assistance programs, international online pharmacies, and real-time prescription benefit tools. We created an algorithm to help clinicians identify appropriate strategies based on a patient's health insurance and the type of drug (brand-name vs generic). For example, co-payment cards can lower out-of-pocket costs for privately insured patients taking brand-name prescription drugs. For uninsured individuals or those with public insurance like Medicare Part D who meet financial eligibility criteria, patient assistance or public assistance programs may be available. All patients, regardless of health insurance, can forgo insurance and purchase drugs directly using pharmacy coupons or direct-to-consumer pharmacies, which sometimes offer lower prices for generic drugs compared to insurance. For insured patients, such purchases do not count toward insurance deductibles or annual out-of-pocket maximums. Online international pharmacies provide a last resort for patients in need of brand-name drugs who lack affordable domestic options. Increasingly, prescribers can use real-time prescription drug benefit tools to estimate patient out-of-pocket costs and identify alternative lower-cost treatments for insured patients, but these tools can be inaccurate or incomplete. Conclusions and relevance: The current patchwork of strategies to help patients manage high prescription drug costs highlights the structural and policy challenges within the US prescription drug market that impede affordable access for some patients. While these strategies provide tangible solutions for clinicians to help patients access medically appropriate but costly medications, they do not address the root causes of high drug prices.
A Comparative Analysis of International Drug Price Negotiation Frameworks: An Interview Study of Key Stakeholders

ISELIN DAHLEN SYVERSEN,KEVIN SCHULMAN,AARON S. KESSELHEIM,WILLIAM B. FELDMAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12714

2024-09-19

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:Policy Points Health care systems around the world rely on a range of methods to ensure the affordability of prescription drugs, including negotiating prices soon after drug approval and relying on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved therapies with existing alternatives. The negotiation framework established under the Inflation Reduction Act is far more limited than other frameworks explored in this study. Adding elements from these frameworks could lead to more effective price negotiation in the United States. Context In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which allowed Medicare, for the first time, to begin negotiating the prices for certain high‐cost brand‐name prescription drugs. Many other industrialized countries negotiate drug prices, and we sought to compare and contrast key features of the negotiation process across several health systems. We focused, in particular, on the criteria for selecting drugs for price negotiation, procedures for negotiation, factors that influence negotiated prices, and how prices are implemented. Methods We included four G7 countries in our analysis (Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom [England]), two Benelux countries (Belgium and the Netherlands), and one Scandinavian country (Norway) with long‐established frameworks for drug price negotiation. We also analyzed the Veterans Affairs Health System in the United States. For each system, we gathered relevant legislation, government publications, and guidelines to understand negotiation frameworks, and we reached out to key drug price negotiators in each system to conduct semistructured interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, and data were analyzed based on an internal assessment tool that we developed. Findings All eight systems negotiate the prices of brand‐name prescription drugs soon after approval and rely on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved drugs with existing therapies. Systems in our study differed on characteristics such as whether the body performing clinical assessments is separate from the negotiating authority, how added health benefit is assessed, whether explicit willingness‐to‐pay thresholds are employed, and how specific approaches for priority disease areas are taken. Conclusions High‐income countries around the world adopt different approaches to conducting price negotiations on brand‐name drugs but coalesce around a set of practices that will largely be absent from the current Medicare negotiation framework. US policymakers might consider adding some of these characteristics in the future to improve negotiation outcomes.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Medicare Drug Price Negotiation in the United States: Implications and Unanswered Questions

Sean D Sullivan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.015

Abstract:The United States is a relatively free-pricing market for pharmaceutical manufacturers to set list prices at the product launch. Few drug price controls exist, and federal price negotiation as a policy has historically been politically untenable. After decades of debate on whether the federal government, specifically the Medicare program, should more actively manage drug prices, the US Congress passed legislation authorizing Medicare to directly negotiate prices with manufacturers. The purpose of this article is to describe elements and implementation of the price negotiation provisions and then comment on the potential impacts on payers, innovations, and the pharmaceutical industry. While impacting only a few drugs each year in the beginning, price negotiation in the Medicare program will have secondary and long-term effects in the US market and beyond. It is clear that in the United States, the Medicare market for drugs will no longer be a free-pricing environment in the industry.
Cheaper is not always better: Drug shortages in the United States and a value-based solution to alleviate them

Inmaculada Hernandez,Sean D Sullivan,Ryan N Hansen,A Mark Fendrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.7.719

Abstract:Drug shortages threaten patients' access to medications and are associated with adverse health outcomes and increased costs. Drug shortages disproportionately occur among generic drugs of limited profitability, most notably drugs administered by injection. In this perspective, we discuss how reimbursement and purchasing practices that were meant to create an efficient marketplace for generics have generated strong price pressure that threatens profitability in certain markets. We further explain how, faced with limited profitability, manufacturers lack incentives to invest in resilient supply chains, and in some cases, engage in cost-containment strategies or decide to exit the market, ultimately contributing to shortages. We propose the development and implementation of value-based reimbursement to provide needed incentives for drug purchasers and manufacturers to establish a more reliable supply chain as part of the policy solution to reduce the number and extent of drug shortages. This reimbursement model would necessitate the development of a rating system that measures supply chain resilience and maturity for each generic product. This rating would then be applied as a value-based modifier to reimbursement rates for generic products. The proposed model would result in higher reimbursement rates for generic products from more dependable supply chains, generating incentives for manufacturers to invest in supply chain resiliency. We propose the application of this reimbursement system originally in Medicare given Congressional interest on reforming Medicare payment to prevent drug shortages.
Getting the Price Right: Lessons for Medicare Price Negotiation from Peer Countries

Leah Z. Rand,Aaron S. Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01195-x

2022-11-10

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:The USA pays more for brand-name prescription drugs than any other country and new legislation from August 2022 gives Medicare the authority to directly negotiate certain drug prices with manufacturers starting in 2026—something the federal insurer had been prohibited from doing for its prior history. As the USA prepares for negotiations, we therefore surveyed how comparable industrialized countries use statutory requirements and procedures to negotiate brand-name drug prices. Guidance documents, regulations, government and academic publications were reviewed to identify the process of negotiating drug prices in peer countries that have been cited as potential examples for US payment reform: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK. Processes for arriving at a final price for a drug generally fall under three approaches: statutory rebates, setting a maximum price, and arbitration between national (public) insurers and manufacturers. Each approach to price negotiation could be adopted by Medicare and reduce spending even if Medicare does not adopt an exclusionary or closed formulary. Much remains to be determined about how the new price negotiation authority in the USA will be implemented, and policymakers can learn from comparator countries' statutory and regulatory strategies for price negotiation.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
The U.S. medicine chest: Understanding the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain and the role of the pharmacist

Ryan C Costantino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2020.07.018

Abstract:The U.S. capacity to manufacture key essential medications has diminished. The U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain (USPSC) has diversified and now relies on international sources of active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished drug products (FDPs). Despite years of effort raising concerns about the USPSC, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians continue to spend a substantial amount of time and energy responding to, and mitigating the impact of, medication shortages, drug recalls, and the adverse outcomes related to low-quality medications. The extent of U.S. reliance on foreign sources of medications is largely unknown. Pharmacists do not have a reliable way to determine the country of origin (i.e., source), capacity, or geographic location of pharmaceutical manufacturers, limiting our ability to anticipate challenges or mitigate risks to our Nation's drug supply. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's task of regulating quality and safety is challenging and will likely require additional safeguards and resources. In addition to pharmacists' engagement, solutions will likely need to leverage a mix of policy, economic incentives, and expanded objective surveillance testing. The U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain is complex, global, and goes beyond FDPs. The 2020 American Pharmacists Association House of Delegates has rightly asserted that "The quality and safety of pharmaceutical and other medical products and the global pharmaceutical and medical product supply chain are essential to the United States national security and public health." Pharmacy professionals on the front line engage with patients, identify medication-related issues, and engage in drug-procurement decisions. Pharmacists are essential to our nation's overall health and must be engaged in the development and implementation of strategies to safeguard the USPSC.
Do high drug prices fund pharmaceutical innovation?

William Lazonick,Öner Tulum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704241271237

2024-08-13

Healthcare Management Forum

Abstract:Healthcare Management Forum, Ahead of Print. Pharmaceutical companies claim that they need high drug prices to generate sufficient profits to invest in innovation. While this claim can be valid in principle, it is contradicted by the extent to which "Big Pharma" companies in the United States (US) distribute profits to shareholders in the form of cash dividends and stock buybacks. For 2013-2022, the 14 US-based pharmaceutical companies in the S&P 500 Index paid out 54% of net income as dividends and another 51% as buybacks. Incentivizing senior corporate executives to allocate resources in this financialized manner is, as we document, their stock-based compensation. In effect, these companies use high stock prices to boost stock yields at the expense of investing in innovation and compensating workers and taxpayers who make value-creating contributions to the corporation. Given the prominence of US-based pharmaceutical corporations in Canada, we explain how their financialization results in high Canadian drug prices and underinvestment in pharmaceutical research and development in Canada.

English Else
U.S. Drug Shortage and the Holistic Countermeasures Taken by FDA

Garth Boehm

2012-01-01

Abstract:The causes for the drug shortage in the U.S.were analyzed based on the documents of the regulatory agency,congress reports and the 2012 FDA Safety and Innovation Act,along with the countermeasures taken by the regulatory agency and their effects.To address the drug shortage problem,one cannot resort to a single solution,but has to consider the coordination of the regulatory agency,pharmaceutical manufacturers,distributors,healthcare providers,and other stakeholders.
Orphan drugs approved in Canada: health technology assessment, price negotiation, and government formulary listing

Nigel S B. Rawson,John Adams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21678707.2024.2313766

2024-02-14

Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs

Abstract:Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have incentives to stimulate the development and marketing of orphan drugs. Health Canada has none.

pharmacology & pharmacy
International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons: Estimates Using 2022 Data

Andrew W Mulcahy,Daniel Schwam,Susan L Lovejoy

2024-06-03

Abstract:Understanding the extent to which prescription drug prices are higher in the United States than in other countries-after accounting for differences in the volume and mix of drugs-is useful when developing and targeting policies to address both growth in drug spending and the financial impact of prescription drugs on consumers. This study summarizes findings from comparisons of drug prices in the United States and other high-income countries based on 2022 data and presents results for specific types of drugs, including brand-name originator drugs and unbranded generic drugs, and from sensitivity analyses.
Paper Promises for Drug Innovation

Erika Lietzan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3103293

2018-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Innovation does not stop when a new medicine is launched. Development of new uses for already approved drugs, in particular, can make profound contributions to the public health. Whether a new use is suspected during the initial premarket trials, identified through focused research after approval, or discovered serendipitously by physicians treating patients, however, it requires extensive clinical testing before it can be approved by FDA. This testing takes time and money — three to five years on average, and as much as $300 million. This Article considers the incentives that federal law offers to companies to make this investment: patent protection and regulatory exclusivity. Both are designed to provide the innovator with a temporary period of exclusive sales for the use in question. In theory, a generic should be dispensed for all other uses, but the innovator should enjoy all sales for the new use. In fact, though, the sales are not excludable; the incentives are nothing more than paper promises. Generic companies generally enjoy the new-use sales as well. This is flatly inconsistent with the goal of the federal laws governing new-use patents and new-use regulatory exclusivity, and it needs to stop. It happens because we have acquiesced to FDA practices and policies, state laws and policies, and healthcare professional and payer behaviors that work together to gut the incentives put in place by Congress. This Article considers ways of reforming practices at the agency and elsewhere in the healthcare system, so that we can have prompt approval of lower cost generic drugs when patents and exclusivity on a brand drug’s underlying compound and initial use expire, and automatic substitution of those generics when the brand drug is prescribed for the initial use, without the gutting of incentives enacted by Congress.
Pricing, profits and pharmacoeconomics--for whose benefit?

J R Adams,S Ali,C L Bennett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2.3.377

Abstract:In today's troubled healthcare climate, it is not uncommon to run across headlines like: 'Health insurance premiums increasing by 10 percent to 30 percent across the country.' This particular New York Times article went on to explain that this premium price hike, the third consecutive double digit increase in 3 years, is driven largely by escalating pharmaceutical costs. The pharmaceutical industry has largely been vilified in the media and in the recent presidential debates, for fueling healthcare inflation and setting what many perceive to be 'unfair' prices in light of the profit margins on their life-saving products. A report released by the Congressional Research Service found that after tax, profits for the pharmaceutical industry averaged 17% of sales, compared with 5% for all other industries. The White House has added its voice to the popular discontent with notices such as this one reported in the New York Times: 'There is a rising tide politically in this country of strong antagonism against the pharmaceutical industry on the dimension of prices. (Without expanded access to insurance) price controls are an inevitable outcome.' Although the prospect of price control remains dubious in America's entrenched laissez-faire economy, David Kessler, former head of the FDA and the Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, described the situation as a 'powder keg,' stating 'the current system is simply not sustainable'. Although there does not appear to be an immediate solution to this escalating crisis, this editorial will examine pharmaceutical pricing, industry profits and the role of pharmacoeconomic analyses amidst the chaos.
Federal Funding for Expensive Drugs for Rare Diseases: How Do We Pick and Choose?

Joel Lexchin,Sandra Sirrs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2024.27334

Abstract:The number of expensive drugs for rare diseases (EDRDs) approved by Health Canada and their contribution to healthcare costs have been rapidly increasing. The federal government has announced a three-year funding commitment of $1.4 billion for EDRDs, but principles need to be developed for how that funding will be allocated, especially in cases where insufficient data are available to guide decision making. Here, we review the role of evidence quality in making choices and draw on the experience from other countries to put forward five principles about how the money should be spent.

US states want to buy cheap drugs from Canada—and the FDA says yes after three year delay

The International Pharmaceutical Market as a Source of Low-Cost Prescription Drugs for U.S. Patients

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Affordability and availability of off-patent drugs in the United States-the case for importing from abroad: observational study

When will Canada have national pharmacare?

Generic Drugs in the United States: Policies to Address Pricing and Competition

Common Pharmaceutical Price and Cost Controls in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany: Lessons for the United States

Differences in Drug Shortages in the US and Canada

Strategies to Help Patients Navigate High Prescription Drug Costs

A Comparative Analysis of International Drug Price Negotiation Frameworks: An Interview Study of Key Stakeholders

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation in the United States: Implications and Unanswered Questions

Cheaper is not always better: Drug shortages in the United States and a value-based solution to alleviate them

Getting the Price Right: Lessons for Medicare Price Negotiation from Peer Countries

The U.S. medicine chest: Understanding the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain and the role of the pharmacist

Do high drug prices fund pharmaceutical innovation?

U.S. Drug Shortage and the Holistic Countermeasures Taken by FDA

Orphan drugs approved in Canada: health technology assessment, price negotiation, and government formulary listing

International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons: Estimates Using 2022 Data

Paper Promises for Drug Innovation

Pricing, profits and pharmacoeconomics--for whose benefit?

Federal Funding for Expensive Drugs for Rare Diseases: How Do We Pick and Choose?