scholarly journals PRO101 ORPHAN DRUG REIMBURSEMENT IN ENGLAND AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT ACCESS

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S859
Author(s):  
S. Walker ◽  
H. Lilley ◽  
R. Payne ◽  
D. Fountain
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari Minn

AbstractThis article analyses how the regulatory incentives provided by Regulation 141/2000 affect orphan drug development and generic market entry. It seeks to find out how the regulatory incentives work in combination with patent protection, and whether in combination they foster orphan drug innovation and overall patient access, or rather hinder the latter. The article argues that even though the regulatory incentives are targeted to fostering innovation and early generic market access, when combined with patent protection, the generic entry is likely blocked or delayed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A677-A678
Author(s):  
K Falk ◽  
A Brown ◽  
E Faria-Billinton ◽  
M Martensson ◽  
G Murray ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Czech ◽  
Aleksandra Baran-Kooiker ◽  
Kagan Atikeler ◽  
Maria Demirtshyan ◽  
Kamilla Gaitova ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne Marie Ward ◽  
Alexandra Chambers ◽  
Emine Mechichi ◽  
Durhane Wong-Rieger ◽  
Craig Campbell

Abstract Background: The Canadian government has committed to developing a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases starting in 2022. Considering this announcement, we conducted a comparative analysis to examine patient access to therapies for rare disease in each of Canada’s 10 provinces relative to Europe and the U.S., to understand how Canada measures up relative to other countries. Methods: We analyzed all of the therapies with an orphan drug designation approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2020 as the reference for the comparative analysis. We then contrasted access to these drugs in Canada (Health Canada) and the U.S. (Food and Drug Administration, FDA). Our analysis focused on: 1) the number of therapies for rare diseases entering the Canadian market; 2) the percentage of these therapies that are publicly available to Canadians; and 3) the timeliness for patient access to these therapies in Canada. Results: Our analysis identified 63 approved therapies with an orphan drug designation from the EMA. The FDA has approved 53/63 (84%) of these drugs, while Health Canada has approved 41/63 (65%). In Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. had the highest percentage of publicly reimbursed orphan drugs (84%, 70%, 68%, respectively). In comparison, Ontario (20/63, 32%), Quebec (16/63, 25%), and Alberta (16/63, 25%) had the highest percentage of drugs reimbursed among the Canadian provinces. The shortest median duration (in months) from EMA approval to jurisdictional decision on reimbursement was in Austria (3.2), followed by Germany (4.1), and Finland (6.0). In Canada, the shortest median duration (in months) from regulatory approval to reimbursement was in British Columbia (17.3), Quebec (19.6) and Manitoba (19.6), while the longest duration was in P.E.I (38.5), followed by Nova Scotia (25.9), and Newfoundland (25.1).Conclusions: Our comparative analysis found that Canadians had less frequent and timely access to therapies for rare disease than their global counterparts, highlighting the need for a strategy for rare disease in Canada that optimizes the number of patients with access to rare disease therapies, as quickly as possible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document