Abstract
Abstract
Background
Although some jurisdictions have implemented particular adjustments to accommodate often-expensive orphan drugs in their healthcare systems, availability of these drugs remains complex. This study investigates alternative financing models and early access schemes for orphan drugs in the context of the Belgian healthcare system.
Methods
Three focus group discussions were held with a panel of eleven experts from the Belgian Drug Reimbursement Committee, the Colleges for Orphan Drugs, the pharmaceutical industry, physicians, ethicists and pharmacists. Retrieved data were pseudonymised, analysed and coded according to the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.
Results
Experts disfavoured the insulated fund as well as private insurance for financing orphan drugs, as, respectively, isolation of a separate budget and a mostly profit-driven mechanism would contradict the Belgian fundamental principle of solidarity. Moreover, an insulated fund could, albeit on a smaller scale, reproduce the same budgetary constraints as the general reimbursement system. As the Special Solidarity Fund is intended for urgent care and exclusively accommodates financial needs subject to eligibility criteria, its design would not allow general financing of orphan drugs. Overall, implementation of an alternative financing model was not endorsed, instead, improving the current reimbursement system was preferred. Suggestions mentioned were; increased collaboration and transparency, robust and quality real-world evidence but also digitalization of data. Alleviating administrative burden and simplifying the admission process of compassionate use program, medical need program and early treatment reimbursement should be prioritized to facilitate early access. Furthermore, a legal framework for off-label use could stimulate proper implementation. Efforts on collaboration of expertise centres and coordination of orphan drug databases across Europe could foster a robust data network to support orphan drug availability in individual countries.
Conclusions
This research reveals that reassessing current financing models and early access schemes by eliminating inadequacies, may be more conducive than establishing alternative systems to increase availability of orphan drugs in Belgium. Other jurisdictions may rely on this information to review their own models of early access and financing to cultivate a more sustainable delivery of orphan drugs.
Funder
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Genetics (clinical),General Medicine
Reference53 articles.
1. Annemans L, Ayme S, Le Cam Y, Facey K, Gunther P, Nicod E, et al. Recommendations from the European working group for value assessment and funding processes in rare diseases (ORPH-VAL). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):50.
2. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Off J Eur Commun. 2000;L18/1–L18/5.
3. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Orphan Drug Act. Public Law. 1983;97–414.
4. European Commission. Joint evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. 2020;163 final(Part 1/6).
5. IQVIA in Statista. Percentage of orphan drugs approved by the EMA available to patients in Europe as of 2020, by country* [Graph]. 2021 [Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1248698/rate-of-orphan-drugs-availability-europe-by-country/.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献