Cargando…

Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how much public payers spend on orphan medicines. This study aimed at identifying information on orphan medicine expenditure incurred by public payers that was published in literature globally and at possibly synthesising their shares as portion of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gombocz, Margit, Vogler, Sabine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7552556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33062285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-020-00260-0
_version_ 1783593424878829568
author Gombocz, Margit
Vogler, Sabine
author_facet Gombocz, Margit
Vogler, Sabine
author_sort Gombocz, Margit
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how much public payers spend on orphan medicines. This study aimed at identifying information on orphan medicine expenditure incurred by public payers that was published in literature globally and at possibly synthesising their shares as portion of the total pharmaceutical expenditure. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken using Medline, the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts of potentially qualifying studies were reviewed for inclusion. Included articles were analysed, and bibliometric parameters as well as public expenditure data on orphan medicines were retrieved. RESULTS: Six hundred forty three articles excluding duplicates were identified. After screening of the abstracts and a review of the full texts, 13 articles qualified for in-depth analysis. The 13 selected articles on orphan pharmaceutical expenditure were published between 2010 and 2018. Survey periods varied between 1 year and 12 years. One publication included 22 countries but the majority of the studies were related to a single country. Expenditure data was available in five of the 13 articles, and eight articles used ‘expenditure proxies’ such as sales data. Spending data had been sourced from public institutions (4 studies), private providers (5 studies) and a combination of both (3 studies, no information on data source in 1 study). In all included studies, secondary data were analysed. Reported expenditure shares for orphan medicines in relation to total pharmaceutical spend was frequently below 3%. Countries with higher shares included the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and Bulgaria—the latter reporting spending on orphan medicines as high as 9%. CONCLUSIONS: A low number of studies that informed about pharmaceutical spending on orphan medicines was published, thereof only a few explicitly analysed expenditure data of public payers. A conclusive synthesis of public spending on orphan medicines is a challenge given to the diversity in methodologies to measure expenditure. There is a need for further research to survey primary data of public spending for orphan medicines, based on a sound methodology to measure these data and to compare them internationally.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7552556
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75525562020-10-13 Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature Gombocz, Margit Vogler, Sabine J Pharm Policy Pract Research BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how much public payers spend on orphan medicines. This study aimed at identifying information on orphan medicine expenditure incurred by public payers that was published in literature globally and at possibly synthesising their shares as portion of the total pharmaceutical expenditure. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken using Medline, the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts of potentially qualifying studies were reviewed for inclusion. Included articles were analysed, and bibliometric parameters as well as public expenditure data on orphan medicines were retrieved. RESULTS: Six hundred forty three articles excluding duplicates were identified. After screening of the abstracts and a review of the full texts, 13 articles qualified for in-depth analysis. The 13 selected articles on orphan pharmaceutical expenditure were published between 2010 and 2018. Survey periods varied between 1 year and 12 years. One publication included 22 countries but the majority of the studies were related to a single country. Expenditure data was available in five of the 13 articles, and eight articles used ‘expenditure proxies’ such as sales data. Spending data had been sourced from public institutions (4 studies), private providers (5 studies) and a combination of both (3 studies, no information on data source in 1 study). In all included studies, secondary data were analysed. Reported expenditure shares for orphan medicines in relation to total pharmaceutical spend was frequently below 3%. Countries with higher shares included the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and Bulgaria—the latter reporting spending on orphan medicines as high as 9%. CONCLUSIONS: A low number of studies that informed about pharmaceutical spending on orphan medicines was published, thereof only a few explicitly analysed expenditure data of public payers. A conclusive synthesis of public spending on orphan medicines is a challenge given to the diversity in methodologies to measure expenditure. There is a need for further research to survey primary data of public spending for orphan medicines, based on a sound methodology to measure these data and to compare them internationally. BioMed Central 2020-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7552556/ /pubmed/33062285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-020-00260-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Gombocz, Margit
Vogler, Sabine
Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature
title Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature
title_full Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature
title_fullStr Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature
title_full_unstemmed Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature
title_short Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature
title_sort public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7552556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33062285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-020-00260-0
work_keys_str_mv AT gomboczmargit publicspendingonorphanmedicinesareviewoftheliterature
AT voglersabine publicspendingonorphanmedicinesareviewoftheliterature