Search

The paper addresses the issue of excessive price abuse under Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), by drawing inspiration from a recent stream of cases (developed first at the national and then at the EU level) involving pharmaceutical companies marketing off-patent drugs. In particular, the two 'most advanced' cases are analysed: Aspen in Italy and Pfizer/Flynn in the United Kingdom. This new-found attention towards exploitative practices in the form of excessive and unfair pricing by dominant undertakings that have traditionally been subject to a cautious antitrust scrutiny seems worth exploring for a number of reasons, as illustrated in the paper. Ultimately, it is argued that this further 'interference' of competition law into the realms of regulation may be actually justified, albeit subject to precise conditions for enforcement, and may pursue policy objectives in the wider context of EU health law.

This paper explores what motivates improved health care performance. Previously, many have thought that performance would either improve via choice and competition or by relying on trust and altruism. But neither assumption is supported by available evidence. So instead we explore a third approach of reciprocal altruism with sanctions for unacceptably poor performance and rewards for high performance. These rewards and sanctions, however, are not monetary, but in the form of reputational effects through public reporting of benchmarking of performance. Drawing on natural experiments in Italy and the United Kingdom, we illustrate how public benchmarking can improve poor performance at the national level through 'naming and shaming' and enhance good performance at the sub-national level through 'competitive benchmarking' and peer learning. Ethnographic research in Zambia also showed how reputations count. Policy-makers could use these effects in different ways to improve public services.