- Jonathan C P Roos, medical doctor,
- Hanna I Hyry, lawyer,
- Timothy M Cox, professor of medicine
- 1Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK
- Correspondence to: T M Cox ec432{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk
- Accepted 11 November 2010
Orphan drug legislation in the European Union has promoted the development of treatments for very rare diseases by bestowing 10 year marketing exclusivity. This market monopoly is one of the benefits that comes under the European Union’s Regulation EC No 141/2000 (see webtable 1) and has enabled manufacturers to charge what many consider “exorbitant” prices for orphan drugs1 (table 1⇓).
- In this window
- In a new window
Orphan drugs and their approximate costs
These necessary drugs, which are very costly, profoundly affect the wellbeing of patients who2 struggle to persuade national health systems, operating under significant constraints,3 to finance their treatment.4 5 Orphan drug costs already consume 5% of the Belgian national drug budget6 and are predicted soon to consume 6-8% of healthcare budgets of larger EU countries such as France5—an unsustainable position.
Current high pricing thus hinders access to treatment7 and contravenes the aim of the Orphan Regulation: “Patients suffering from rare conditions should be entitled to the same quality of treatment as other patients”.8
Why are orphan drug prices so high in Europe?
The regulation did not create an oversight body to regulate prices and protect consumers from market abuse, by contrast with other state sanctioned monopolies (for example, OFWAT regulates water prices in England 9). However, if the product is deemed sufficiently profitable, the exclusivity period can be reduced to six years under Article 8(2). But a recent EU-commissioned investigation has noted fears that it could “substantially” reduce investment incentives.10 Thus this “claw-back” provision seems never to have been invoked and is unlikely to be …
Sign in
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
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27