Suchergebnisse

Introduction: Generic entry is a well-known driver of competition and cost containment. Objectives: We aim to measure the market exclusivity of originator drugs and to determine what influences the entry of generics in South Korea. Methods: A list of originator drugs approved by the authority from 2000 to 2013 and their corresponding generics were paired. An event history model was applied for a statistical estimation for the duration until generic entry and to identify abbreviating or prolonging factors on the duration. Results: A total of 2,061 pairs of originator and generics were identified. The market exclusivity for the originator drugs, including NDAs and non-NDAs, has not notably changed. However, competition among non-NDAs was less common than we expected. We found delayed time to entry of generics in the long run, particularly for non-NDAs in injection forms and biologics, and this finding is partially associated with market attractiveness. Conclusion: The authority should address the delayed availability of certain types of generic drugs. The government could provide information on off-patent pharmaceuticals with no generic competition, designate their corresponding submissions as prioritized in the review process, and provide additional market exclusivity when entering the market via a long period of exclusivity.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are struggling with unprecedented drug spending and governments have devised various policy options to manage high-priced medicines. Meanwhile, some pricing and reimbursement processes are currently moving under the jurisdiction of international agreements. This study aims to understand trends in international agreements from the perspectives of pricing and reimbursement policies for newly marketed medicines. METHODS: We proposed the framework to interpret the international agreements as code and applied computational text analysis to understand international agreements as data. In particular, we selected the AUSFTA, KORUS, and TPP to assess the progress and evolution in international agreements and investigate the existing relevant content on the pricing and reimbursement of newly marketed medicines. RESULTS: Similar to the provisions for intellectual property, the scope of international agreements regarding pricing and reimbursement decisions are broadened and strengthened. Over time, the domain of transparency, re-naming procedural fairness, has changed significantly more than the remaining domains. Pharmaceutical companies will have more opportunities to advocate for their positions, to protect their interests in decision processes, to investigate the decisions on listings and setting the amounts of reimbursement, and to challenge these decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Recently signed international agreements favor companies over governments with underscoring procedural fairness and timely access. However, access to affordable medicines is the goal towards which international agreements should aim. In a similar vein, substantial fairness and the accountability of companies should be discussed when negotiating agreements or adopting international agreements through domestic legislation.

Regulatory decisions for new drugs approval present high uncertainty, low reversibility, the avoidance of observable errors, and high political stakes. However, research on the behavior of regulatory agencies is scarce, particularly in the context of more open decision-making processes. We aimed to evaluate the perceptions of regulatory decision-making for new drugs approval from the viewpoints of the manufacturers in South Korea. In 2019, employees in domestic (n = 5) and foreign (n = 7) manufacturers with expertise in regulatory affairs were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey and semi-structured group interview. We asked about the relevance of various criteria in regulatory decision-making, the participation of various stakeholders, and the degree of consent for new drug approval with uncertainty. The domestic and foreign manufacturers perceived that a regulatory decision made by the MFDS was solely based on technical merit within a closed decision-making system. They responded that safety, efficacy, and benefit-to-harm ratio were the most relevant criteria and the most prioritized criteria in regulatory decision-making. They also perceived that the MFDS was the sole relevant member in a regulatory decision. However, the foreign manufacturers disagreed that the regulatory agency and the advisory committee were independent of conflicts of interest, which might imply that regulatory decisions were occasionally determined by the agency given the political benefits and/or costs within a more open system. The role of an advisory committee in terms of deliberation and participatory democracy were requested to make politically legitimate regulatory decisions from the viewpoints of the manufacturers. However, their perceptions toward public involvement in regulatory decision-making is still at the early stage.

BACKGROUND: New drugs including cancer drugs and orphan drugs are becoming increasingly more expensive. Risk sharing arrangements (RSAs) could manage the risk based on both financial impact and the health outcome of new drugs if reimbursed. To improve patients' access to new drugs under uncertainties, many developed countries have adopted RSAs. In this study, we aimed to understand the effects of RSAs in South Korea on patients' access. METHODS: We reviewed current status of RSA drugs in South Korea. The number of appraisals and time gap between market approval and reimbursement per RSA drug were considered to quantify improvement of patients' access as they showed how rapidly decisions on reimbursement of RSA drugs were derived. Then, we applied a comparative analysis to determine whether the RSA drugs in South Korea were reimbursed in the UK, Italy, and Australia. Most data for this study were obtained from websites of the governmental department/agencies responsible for appraisal of drug reimbursement in each country. And literatures related to RSAs were investigated as well. RESULTS: The eligibility for Korean RSAs had two key components - drugs for cancer and rare diseases and not having other alternative treatments. As of the first half of 2019, there were 39 RSA drugs reimbursed in South Korea, the majority of which were financial-based schemes. Refund and expenditure cap were the representative types (89.7%). After introduction of RSAs, the time gap and number of appraisals were decreased. Based on the indications of RSA drugs, the level of drug coverage in South Korea was found lower than Italy, similar to the UK, and higher than Australia. CONCLUSIONS: RSAs in South Korea significantly enhanced patients' access to new drugs and led to the alleviation of patients' out-of-pocket expenses. The drug coverage of South Korea had a level comparable to that of other countries. This study provides implications for countries that have a dual mission of containing pharmaceutical expenditure and improving access ...