Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outstanding Regulatory Aspects in the European Pharmaceutical Market

  • Leading Article
  • The European Pharmaceutical Single Market
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper identifies and analyses a number of outstanding regulatory aspects in the completion of the European pharmaceutical single market. It discusses pricing and competition in pharmaceuticals in the aftermath of the 3 Frankfurt Roundtables and their results. It analyses the environment for generic competition in the European Union (EU) and the extent to which this environment needs to be amended in order for such competition to be promoted. It links the issues of parallel trade, standardisation, single trademark, the European databank and the definition of innovation with the current situation in the functioning of the single market, particularly the sovereignty of the member states in determining pricing and reimbursement levels. It argues that the above problems need to be tackled in conjunction with pricing and reimbursement. The paper further points at new developments, in particular biotechnology patenting and orphan drug regulation, where the EU has introduced or is about to introduce newlegislation that has been needed for a long time and examines how this legislation can be beneficial. Finally, the paper analyses the implications for healthcare provision in the member states of 2 legal cases heard before the European Court of Justice in relation to the free movement of goods and healthcare provided across borders.

The paper concludes that there is still a long list of regulatory aspects that remain unresolved despite the fact that significant progress has been made to date, and observes that economic analysis in pharmaceutical regulation is very much intertwined with political expediency. In addition, the definition of political expediency varies as one considers developments at the EU or national level, since it does not necessarily follow that individual actors coincide in opinion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Directive 89/105. Official J Eur Communities 1989; 40: 8

    Google Scholar 

  2. Regulation 1768/92. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 182: 1

    Google Scholar 

  3. Commission of the European Communities. Outlines of an industrial policy for the pharmaceutical sector in the European Community, Directorate General III. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  4. Regulation 2309/93. Official J Eur Communities 1993; 214: 1

    Google Scholar 

  5. Directive 92/26. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 5

    Google Scholar 

  6. Directive 92/28. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 13

    Google Scholar 

  7. Directive 89/341. Official J Eur Communities 1989; 142: 11

    Google Scholar 

  8. Directive 92/27. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 8

    Google Scholar 

  9. Directive 92/25. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 113: 1

    Google Scholar 

  10. Commission of the European Communities. Draft Treaty of Amsterdam: a Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States; 19 June 1997; Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  11. Commission of the European Communities. COM (95) 661. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  12. aCommittee on Legal Affairs and Citizens’Rights. Report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Brussels: European Parliament, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kanavos P, Mossialos E, Abel-Smith B. American and Japanese (bio)pharmaceutical investment in Europe. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate General for Research, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  14. Commission of the European Communities. Commission communication on the single market in pharmaceuticals: COM (98) 588 [final]. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1998: 6

  15. European Court of Justice. Case 215/87: Heinz Schumacher vs. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Court of Justice of the European Communities. Case C-120/95: Nicolas Decker vs. Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés (1997), Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  17. Council of Ministers of 14 June 1971. Consolidated version of Regulation (EEU) No. 1408/71 on the application of social security systems to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 35: C325

    Google Scholar 

  18. Court of Justice of the European Communities. Case C-158/96: Raymond Kohll vs. Union des Caisses de Maladie (1997), Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  19. Consolidated version of Regulation (EEU) No. 1408/71 of the Council of 14/06/1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed and self-employed persons, and to members of their familiesvmoving within the Community. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 35: C325

  20. Consolidated version of Council Regulation (EEU) No. 574/72 of 21/03/1972 regarding the implementation of Regulation 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community. Official J Eur Communities 1992; 35: C325

  21. Kesteloot K, Pocceschi S, van der Schueren E. The reimbursement of the expenses for medical treatment received by ‘transnational’ patients in EU countries. Health Policy 1995; 33: 43–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mossialos E, McKee M, Rathwell T. Health care and the single market [editorial]. Eur J Public Health 1997; 7 (3): 235–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Calnan M, Palm W, Sohy F, et al. Cross-border use of health care: a survey of frontier workers’ knowledge, attitudes and use. Eur J Public Health 1997; 7 Suppl. 3: 26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. France G. Cross-border flows of Italian patients within the European Union: an international trade approach. Eur J Public Health 1997; 7 Suppl. 3: 18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Starmans B, Leidl R, Rhodes G. A comparative study on cross border hospital care in the EuregioMeuse-Rhine. Eur J Public Health 1997; 7 Suppl. 3: 33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Norman P. Bonn to defy European Court. Financial Times 1998 Jun 6: 2

    Google Scholar 

  27. Furniss J. The Bangemann Process: slow progress behind closed doors. Eurohealth 1988; 4 (2): 20–1

    Google Scholar 

  28. Commission of the European Communities. Second Round Table: completing the single pharmaceutical market. Frankfurt: Commission of the European Communities, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  29. Council of Ministers. On the outlines of an industrial policy in the pharmaceutical sector in the EU: Council resolution of 23 April 1996. Official J Eur Communities 1996; 96/C: 136/04

    Google Scholar 

  30. European Court of Justice. Judgement of 5 December 1996 in joint cases C-267/95 Merck vs. Primecrown and C-268/95 Beecham vs. Europharm. Luxembourg: European Court of Justice, 1996: 6285–392

    Google Scholar 

  31. Working Group One. The European pharmaceutical market: report. Brussels: European Commission, 1997

  32. Working Group Two. The single market in pharmaceuticals: chairman & rapporteur’s summary. Brussels: European Commission, 1997

  33. Council of Ministers. Council conclusions on the single market for pharmaceuticals. Brussels: Internal Market Council, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  34. Commission of the European Communities. Commission communication on the single market in pharmaceuticals: COM (98) 588 [final]. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  35. Commission of the European Communities. Frankfurt Roundtable Process: conclusions drawn by Commissioner Bangemann [online]. Available from: URL: http://dg3.eudra.org/frankf/pdf/rt3concl.pdf (accessed 1999 April 19)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a Council regulation (EEC) concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicine products: COM (90) 101–SYN 255 [final]. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stols H. Generic substitution: evaluating the possibilities and limitations for stimulating generic competition. IIR Conference on Successfully Competing in Generics; 22 Nov 1993; London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hardisty B. Agenda for health 1994: your medicine–whose choice? London: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  39. Danzon PM. The economics of parallel trade. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (3): 293–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Darba J, Rovira J. Parallel imports of pharmaceuticals in the European Union. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 Suppl. 1: 129–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. European Court of Justice. Case 104/75: Offievie van Justice vs. de Peijer (1976). European Community Resolution 613

  42. European Court of Justice. Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95: Merck v. Primecrown 1995

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kanavos P. fSingle currency and monetary union: implications for pharmaceutical spending. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (1): 9–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bangemann M. Second Frankfurt Round Table on the single pharmaceutical market. Eurohealth 1998; 4 (2): 19–20

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mossialos E, Kanavos P, Abel-Smith B. Criteria for the evaluation of new pharmaceutical substances for the European internal market: innovation–part D. Luxembourg: European Parliament, Scientific and Technological Options Assessment, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  46. Joint answer to written questions No. 2367/92, 2368/92, 2370/92 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission. Brussels: European Commission, 1992

  47. Call for EU definition of innovation. Scrip 1996; 2106: 4

    Google Scholar 

  48. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Guideline for good clinical practice (ICH EWG E6: Good Clinical Practice). Draft 9, step 3. Yokohama: IFPMA Secretariat Geneva, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  49. aInternational Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Note for guidance on structure and content of clinical study reports (CPMP/ICH/137/95). Step 4, consensus guideline. Yokohama: IFPMA Secretariat Geneva, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  50. IFMA Secretariat Geneva. International Conference of Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-4); 1997 Jul 12-17; Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  51. Commission of the European Communities. Concept paper on a directive on the implementation of good clinical practice and clinical trials. Directorate General III/E-3, III/5608/95, rev. Brussels: European Commission, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  52. Commission of the European Communities. Expert Group Meeting: the implementation of good clinical practices. Perspectives for research, training and regulatory actions [final report]. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  53. Department of Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals [press release]. London: Department of Health, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  54. Maynard A, Bloor K. Regulating the pharmaceutical industry: pricing should be re-negotiated to control research costs and encourage cost effectiveness. BMJ 1997; 315: 200–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Department of Health. The new NHS: modern and dependable. London: HMSO, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  56. Commission of the European Communities. Commission communication on the single market in pharmaceuticals: COM (98) 588 [final]. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1998: 19

    Google Scholar 

  57. Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission concerning a programme of Community action for rare diseases within the framework for action in the field of public health. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  58. Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on orphan medicinal products [preliminary draft]. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  59. Commission of the European Communities. European pharmaceutical research, development and innovation: assessment of the socio-economic impact of new drugs. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  60. Meyers AS. Rare diseases: what patients need. In: Thoene JG, editor. Physicians’ guide to rare diseases. National Organisation for Rare Disorders’ (NORD) textbook. 2nd ed. Montvale (NJ): Dowden Publishing Company, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hall B. The private and social returns to R & D: measurement and findings. In: Anderson J, Fears R, editors. Valuing and evaluating: assessment of the value of R & D in creating national and corporate prosperity. London: SB, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  62. Commission of the European Communities. European pharmaceutical research, development and innovation: assessment of the socioeconomic impact of new drugs. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Policy and LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, England

    Panos Kanavos & Elias Mossialos

Authors
  1. Panos Kanavos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elias Mossialos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panos Kanavos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kanavos, P., Mossialos, E. Outstanding Regulatory Aspects in the European Pharmaceutical Market. Pharmacoeconomics 15, 519–533 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915060-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915060-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation