Search

Early access programs (EAPs) generally refer to patient access to medicines/indications before marketing authorization, possibly extended to price and reimbursement approval. These programs include compassionate use, which is usually covered by pharmaceutical companies, and EAPs reimbursed by third-party payers. This paper aims at comparing EAPs in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain, UK) and providing empirical evidence on EAPs in Italy. The comparative analysis was conducted through a literature review (including scientific and grey literature), complemented by 30-min semi-structured interviews with local experts. The Italian empirical analysis employed data available on the National Medicines Agency website. Although EAPs are very different across countries, they exhibit some common features: (i) eligibility criteria refer to the absence of valid therapeutic alternatives and a presumed favourable risk–benefit profile; (ii) payers do not allocate a pre-determined budget to these programs; (iii) total spending on EAPs is unknown. The French EAPs seem to be the most structured, financed through social insurance, covering pre-marketing, post-marketing and pre-reimbursement phases and providing for data collection. Italy's approach to EAPs has been varied, with several programs covered by different payers, including the cohort-based 648 List (for both early access and off-label use), the nominal-based 5% Fund, and Compassionate Use. Most applications to EAPs are from the Antineoplastic and immunomodulating drug class (ATC L). Some 62% of indications in the 648 List are either not under clinical development or have never been approved (pure off-label use). For those subsequently approved, most approved indications coincide with those covered through EAPs. Only the 5% Fund provides data on economic impact (€ 81.2 million in 2021; average cost per patient € 61.5K). Diverse EAPs are a possible source of inequalities in access to medicines across Europe. A harmonization of these programs, though difficult to achieve, could be modelled on the French EAPs and provide key advantages, not least of which a common effort to collect real-world data in parallel with clinical trials and clear separation between EAPs and off-label use programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Financial recession mandated the introduction of harsh austerity measures. Health, and particularly pharmaceuticals, constitute a significant part of public expenditure and as such they have been subject to significant budget reduction and stringent policies. As a consequence of these measures, an increasing percentage of patients resort to private sector for acquisition of their prescribed pharmaceuticals, due to exclusion of public health care beneficiary status, reduction of breadth of national formularies, delays in reimbursement and excessive waiting times. Affordability for pharmaceuticals in the private sector is of paramount importance since household disposable income plummets and more people are prone to impoverishment. This is critical for branded products, whose active substance and trademark are under patent protection, since no alternative options exist while their monopoly status imply that their prices are high. The impact on affordability regarding access of patient to necessary pharmaceutical care has not been documented in developed countries. Methods: A laspeyer index was constructed to compare prices of branded pharmaceuticals and assess affordability, by adjusting price index with Gross Domestic Product Purchase Power Parity per capita. Laspeyer index compares prices based on weights, which in our study are the corresponding sales of products in Cyprus. Moreover, we define the percentage of population that will face catastrophic pharmaceutical expenditure after acquisition of one product from eight major and common therapeutic categories. We used data from five European recession countries: Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Cyprus, for 48 products which were selected based on sales. Results: Cyprus displays the highest prices for pharmaceuticals. By adjusting for Gross Domestic Product Purchase Power Parity per capita, affordability is worst for Cyprus and Portugal. Conclusions: As more patients have to resort to private sector for provision of adequate and timely healthcare, health agencies must reassess affordability of medicines and minimise catastrophic expenditure impact. Health agencies should primarily try to enhance efficiency of the system and reduce waste, instead of resorting to blunt budget reduction, which can demonstrate unpredictable consequences in public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]