26.04.12
Blocking cheap drug access ‘should be stopped’
Drug companies should not be able to block access to cheaper alternatives to boost their profits, researchers writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics argue.
This follows the launch of a legal challenge by pharmaceutical company Novartis against trusts using the cheaper drug Avastin for wet AMD instead of officially approved Lucentis. Both drugs are owned by the same company, Roche, but Lucentis is marketed by Novartis in theUKand Avastin is not licensed for AMD treatment.
An overhaul of systems for drug research, development, marketing and pricing is needed, the researchers recommend.
They write: “When there is a treatment that is apparently vastly more cost-effective, with a similar safety profile to an existing licensed treatment, there is no good reason that those in charge of resource allocation decisions within healthcare systems (be they public, private, or mixed) and those responsible for delivering treatment, should not be able to opt for the cheaper alternative.
“It should not be left to companies to decide whether a particular product is submitted for licensing as this can clearly operate against the public and patients’ interest. Not only is Roche unwilling to submit bevacizumab (Avastin) for licensing for eye conditions, it is also resistant to continued off-label use.
“It should be a cause for concern that many other more cost-effective treatments might be being held back as companies pursue and market those that are expected to bring most profit.
“The fact that they may lack the commercial incentive for pursuing cheaper alternatives does not justify actively blocking others from doing so, and points to the need for alternative incentive mechanisms to be provided for drugs that companies will otherwise undersupply.”
To view the paper, visit http://press.psprings.co.uk/jme/april/187.full.pdf
Tell us what you think – have your say below, or email us directly at [email protected]