- Claus M⊘ldrup, associate professor (cm@dfuni.dk)1
- 1 Department of Social Pharmacy, Danish University of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universitetsparken 2, DK-2100 Copenhagen ⊘, Denmark
- Accepted 7 March 2005
Not paying for a drug unless it works sounds great for patients and healthcare funders, but it could also benefit manufacturers.
Introduction
Tensions between the pharmaceutical industry and health authorities over drug marketing have increased in recent decades. The authorities want to get the most possible drug for their money whereas drug companies want to get the most money for their drugs.1 2 The current situation is untenable first and foremost for the industry but also for the authorities, and, in the end, the patients. This article proposes how a no cure, no pay strategy could meet the needs of all parties and contribute to a sustainable future for the medical environment as a whole.
Collision course
Marketing tensions are neither new nor odious, but two factors in particular have put the two opposing sides on a collision course. On one side, the authorities have fewer financial resources at their disposal relative to the many drug options available and the increasing need for treatment caused by a swell in the ageing population. Fewer resources naturally lead to increased focus on how money should be spent and what the return is in practice. This has caused the authorities to focus more on clinical evidence and relevance in the choice of drug treatment. In turn, this has led to the introduction of the concept of rational pharmacotherapy as a political tool for ordering priorities (box 1).3 4
Box 1: Rational pharmacotherapy
Rational pharmacotherapy is defined as drug treatment that provides the greatest effect with the least serious and fewest side effects at the lowest possible price.5 The following equation is used to illustrate the idea: Effect (clinical studies)+extent of side effects/price = extent of rational pharmacotherapy
On the other side, drug companies have had to become more competitive as a result of the falling number of …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Double Effect and Assisted Dying
Published 7 February 2012
Re: The NHS is heading down a hole—should we stop digging?
Published 7 February 2012
Opposing everything, everyone, every time is not constructive.
Published 7 February 2012
Physical activity versus exercise in cancer survivors: it is a matter of definition!
Published 7 February 2012
Re: Sir Karl Popper, swans, and the general practitioner
Published 7 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Wakefield sues BMJ over MMR articles (5 responses)
Published 10 Jan 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (5 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012