Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Critical Assessment of Belgian Reimbursement Dossiers of Orphan Drugs

Contents:

Author Info

  • Alain Denis

    (Yellow Window Management Consultants, Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Lut Mergaert

    (Yellow Window Management Consultants, Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Christel Fostier

    (Yellow Window Management Consultants, Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Irina Cleemput

    (Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium)

  • Frank Hulstaert

    (Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium)

  • Steven Simoens

    (Research Centre for Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaco-economics, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Background: Orphan medicinal products are designed to diagnose or treat rare diseases that are serious, life threatening or chronically debilitating and that affect 50 or fewer people in every 100 000 in the EU. In Belgium, the Drug Reimbursement Committee (DRC) evaluates reimbursement requests for orphan drugs based on multiple criteria: the therapeutic value, price and proposed reimbursement tariff; the importance of the drug in clinical practice; and the budget impact of the drug. Objectives: This study aimed to assess reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs in Belgium and to compare them with the clinical evidence submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: A qualitative analysis examined all reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs that were submitted in Belgium between January 2002 and June 2008. The following information was extracted from each dossier: description of the orphan drug; indication; reimbursement status; therapeutic value and needs; budget impact; and number of registered indications. For selected orphan drugs, an in-depth analysis extracted and compared information about the clinical trials, their primary endpoints and results from EMA documents (i.e. the marketing authorization application file, European public assessment report and summary of product characteristics) and the Belgian reimbursement dossiers. Results: Reimbursement was awarded to the majority of orphan drugs. In addition to the official criteria, other negotiable factors, such as price adjustments, employment incentives, patient population restrictions and funding of diagnostic tests by the company, seemed to play a role in the reimbursement decision. Despite the low number of patients, randomized controlled trials were conducted for many orphan drugs. Budget-impact analyses were simplistic and did not consider the impact across multiple indications. Some differences were also observed between the clinical evidence submitted to the EMA and that submitted to the Belgian DRC. Conclusions: In addition to the official criteria, other negotiable factors, such as price adjustments and employment incentives, may play a role in Belgian reimbursement decisions of orphan drugs. Some differences have also been noted between the clinical evidence reported in EMA documents and the evidence included in Belgian reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs. There appears to be a need for further standardization of Belgian reimbursement applications and for European cooperation in sharing clinical evidence of orphan drugs.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/pdfhandler.00019053-201129100-00006.pdf
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/fulltext.00019053-201129100-00006.htm
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 10 ()
    Pages: 883-893

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:10:p:883-893

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/

    Related research

    Keywords: Decision-making; Formularies; Health-policy; Reimbursement.;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:10:p:883-893. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.