Insights & news

President Trump Assails Foreign Medicine Prices and Practices in "American Patients First"

  • 14/05/2018
  • Articles

President Donald Trump and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar presented on 11 May 2018 a medicine pricing plan entitled “American Patients First - The Trump Administration Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs” ("APF"). APF obviously focuses on the complexity and idiosyncrasies of the US medicine markets and regulations and is designed to make its impact felt there. Still, some of the measures that will be implemented or studied sound familiar from an international perspective. Examples are measures to promote the uptake of biosimilars and indication-based pricing.
 
Of immediate relevance for third countries is the APF’s assault against “foreign governments’ free-riding off American investment in innovation”.  According to APF, which seems to focus first and foremost on Europe, budget controls have created excessive constraints on government spending on prescription medicines. Additionally, external reference pricing “combined with the threat of market lockout or intellectual property infringement, prevents drug companies from charging market rates for their products, while delaying the availability of new cures to patients living in countries implementing these policies.”  As a result, APF maintains that European countries (or, more generally, OECD countries) have not contributed an “appropriate share” to the research and development costs of medicines conceived in the US. They have rather been “free-riding off US consumers and taxpayers”.
 
Despite its muscular analysis, the heading “fixing global freeloading” of the APF does not so much cover a list of measures ready to be implemented against foreign governments or entities, but rather a few avenues of thought that invite further exploring. The APF raises the following questions: 

  • What can be done to reduce the pricing disparity and spread the burden for incentivising new drug development more equally between the U.S. and other developed countries?
  • What policies should the U.S. government pursue in order to protect intellectual property rights and address concerns around compulsory licensing in this area?

It would not be wise to dismiss the international part of the APF as a form of consequence-free pandering to a domestic audience. The United States, including previous administrations, has always been critical of budget-inspired European medicine reimbursement measures if they were judged to lack transparency, reflect arbitrariness, stifle innovation and/or erode intellectual property. For example, as recently as March 2018, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) expressed concern over European Union pharmaceutical policies in its 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. According to USTR, “U.S. pharmaceutical stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding several Member State policies affecting market access for pharmaceutical products, including non-transparent procedures and a lack of meaningful stakeholder input into policies related to pricing and reimbursement, such as therapeutic reference pricing and other price controls. Such policies reportedly create uncertainty and unpredictability for investment in these markets and can undermine incentives to market and innovate further”. USTR went on to criticise a range of individual Member States, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia. It is conceivable that, based on the analysis contained in APF, the US will no longer target European medicine pricing policies which it considers illegitimate through diplomacy only, but may also seek to deploy international trade measures.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 18/07/2019
    • Articles

    Transatlantic Cooperation on Medicines - Latest Developments

    A visit to Canada by the Dutch Minister for Medical Care, Bruno Bruins, has given rise to interesting news regarding international cooperation on medicine pricing. According to the attached press release of 17 July 2019, The Netherlands is spearheading an effort to have Canada sign up to the Beneluxa initiative on medicines (http://www.beneluxa.org/). Beneluxa is an international alliance for pharmaceutical policy composed of Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Medicine pricing is one of the pillars of Beneluxa along with other areas such as horizon scanning. A possible transatlantic contribution to Beneluxa by Canada would undoubtedly add considerable economic weight to the grouping and to the pricing negotations which it initiates. At the same time, it would create a further layer of technical complexity that may cause an already cumbersome organisation to become entirely unwieldy. Separately, Canada also wants to participate in the International Horizon Scanning Initiative (“IHSI”) in which countries from the Beneluxa group and others seek to identify innovative medicines before they reach the market. The initiative is supposed to inform decision-making on treatment choices and prepare members for tough budgetary discussions. An announcement on the countries that will participate in IHSI is scheduled for October 2019.

    Read more
    • 15/07/2019
    • Articles

    Belgium - Request for Premiums and Benefits by Hospitals from Suppliers of Medicines and Medical Devices in Public Procurement Proceedings

    The Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products (“FAMHP”) has recently come out against hospitals requesting premiums and benefits from firms participating in tender proceedings for the supply of medicines and/or medical devices. According to FAMHP, that practice is not only prohibited by Article 81 of the Law of 17 June 2016 on Public Procurement, but may also run foul of Article 10 of the Law of 25 March 1964 regarding Medicines. At issue is the widespread practice indulged in by hospitals to ask prospective suppliers of medicines or medical devices to take care of unrelated goods and services such as the supply of educational materials and software for patient management or to pay for outreach activities organised by the hospitals. Article 81 of the Law of 17 June 2016 on Public Procurement provides in relevant part that the award criteria of a request for tenders should be connected to the subject of the public procurement procedure. For its part, Article 10 of the Law of 25 March 1964 regarding Medicines prohibits firms, subject to exceptions, from offering or providng benefits in cash or in kind to specific healthcare professionals and institutions in connection with the prescription, administration or supply of medicines or medical devices. Similarly, healthcare professionals and institutions are banned from soliciting or receiving such benefits. Based on a combined reading of these provisions, FAMHP maintains that it is not possible to offer or request free additional services with the supply of medicines or medical devices. According to FAMHP, additional services have to (i) come at a price; or (ii) and this is a puzzling addition, “have to present a cost which expressly forms part of the price of the goods”. Importantly, the services have to present a connection with the goods supplied. FAMHP indicates that this implies that outreach activities or additional software are “not admissible”. It adds that “free competition” should be guaranteed at all times and that a hospital should be able to justify the use of a specific award criterion. In other words, the hospital does not benefit from discretionary powers when crafting and then implementing a procurement procedure. Attached are a circular letter of FAMHP on the subject as well as an opinion delivered earlier this year by the committee for public procurement, an advisory body, which informed the point of view of FAMHP.

    Read more
    • 12/07/2019
    • Articles

    Slovakia Final Member State To Benefit From EU-US Mutual Recognition Agreement For Inspections of Manufacturing Sites For Human Medicines

    Slovakia has become the 28th and final EU Member State to be given the powers to carry out good manufacturing practice (“GMP”) inspections at a level equivalent to that prevailing in the US (see attached press release). On 11 July 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) confirmed Slovakia’s status under the Mutual Recognition Agreement (“MRA”) governing GMP inspections of manufacturing sites for human medicines between the EU and the US. For their part, EU Member States have been able to rely on inspection results produced by the FDA since 1 November 2017. Pursuant to the MRA, the EU and the US now fully recognise inspections of manufacturing sites for human medicines carried out in each other’s territories. Separately, the batch testing waiver existing under the MRA will also start to apply. As a result, qualified persons in pharmaceutical firms based in Europe will no longer be required to carry out the quality controls when these have already been run in the US. The EU and US will continue implementation work for the MRA in hopes of extending its scope to a range of additional products, including veterinary medicines, human vaccines and plasma derived medicinal products.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *