Roll K, Stargardt T, Schreyögg J
Lehrstuhl Management im Gesundheitswesen, Universität Hamburg.
Gesundheitswesen. 2011 Aug;73(8-9):504-14. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1262864. Epub 2010 Sep 16.
This paper analyses schemes to promote the authorisation of and reimbursement for orphan drugs.
8 countries - Australia, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, USA - were studied to compare specific regulations for orphan drugs regarding drug admission, health technology assessment (HTA), decision-making for reimbursement, and off-label and compassionate use. Information was obtained by reviewing published and grey literature. Expert interviews were also conducted.
The comparison of orphan drug legislation reveals that the EU and the USA offer the greatest incentives for the development of orphan drugs, whereas there is a tendency for Australia and Switzerland to profit from incentives in other countries. Although not explicitly stated, economic evaluation of orphan drugs takes the special circumstances for orphan drugs into account. In addition to common reimbursement practices, special schemes or programmes for the reimbursement of high-priced orphan drugs exist in all countries that were analysed. Therefore access to orphan drugs seems to be warranted. However, due to co-payments of 5%, the USA may form an exception.
On the one hand, the use of special criteria for drug admission, HTA, and reimbursement promotes R&D for orphan drugs. On the other hand, high opportunity costs arise, because huge efforts are made for a minority of patients. A solution for this moral dilemma may be the application of "rule of rescue" or of "no cure, no pay" programmes.
本文分析了促进孤儿药批准和报销的方案。
对澳大利亚、加拿大、德国、英国、法国、荷兰、瑞士、美国8个国家进行研究,比较孤儿药在药物准入、卫生技术评估(HTA)、报销决策以及超说明书用药和同情用药方面的具体规定。通过查阅已发表文献和灰色文献获取信息,还进行了专家访谈。
孤儿药立法比较显示,欧盟和美国为孤儿药研发提供了最大激励,而澳大利亚和瑞士有从其他国家的激励措施中获利的趋势。尽管未明确说明,但孤儿药的经济评估考虑了孤儿药的特殊情况。除了常见的报销做法外,所有被分析的国家都存在针对高价孤儿药报销的特殊方案或计划。因此,孤儿药的可及性似乎是有保障的。然而,由于美国有5%的自付费用,可能是个例外。
一方面,在药物准入、卫生技术评估和报销方面使用特殊标准促进了孤儿药的研发。另一方面,由于为少数患者付出了巨大努力,产生了高昂的机会成本。解决这一道德困境的一个办法可能是应用“救援原则”或“无治愈,无支付”计划。