Literature DB >> 20482245

Budget impact analysis of orphan drugs in Belgium: estimates from 2008 to 2013.

Alain Denis1, Lut Mergaert, Christel Fostier, Irina Cleemput, Steven Simoens.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to calculate the impact of orphan drugs on the Belgian drug budget in 2008 and to forecast its impact over the following 5 years.
METHOD: The 2008 budget impact was calculated by triangulating information derived from multiple Belgian data sources. The 2008-2013 budget impact analysis was based on three scenarios reflecting different levels of growth in the number of registered orphan drugs in the European Union, the number of drugs reimbursed in Belgium, and the average annual cost per patient per drug in Belgium.
RESULTS: The orphan drug budget impact amounted to €66.2 million (or 5% of the Belgian hospital drug budget) in 2008. The impact would increase to €130-204 million in 2013, depending on the scenario.
CONCLUSIONS: This static analysis measured orphan drug costs only, assuming that other components of health expenditure do not change over time. The analysis showed that the budget impact of orphan drugs in Belgium is substantial and rising, thereby putting pressure on total drug expenditure. Policy options to address the rising budget impact include pricing linked to return on investment, risk-sharing arrangements and re-appraisal of orphan drug status if additional indications are approved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20482245     DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2010.491427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Econ        ISSN: 1369-6998            Impact factor:   2.448


  18 in total

1.  Eliciting preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: the role of opportunity costs and framing effects.

Authors:  Arna S Desser; Jan Abel Olsen; Sverre Grepperud
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67.

Authors:  Arna S Desser; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jan Abel Olsen; Sverre Grepperud; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-09-22

Review 3.  Unintended effects of orphan product designation for rare neurological diseases.

Authors:  Sinéad M Murphy; Araya Puwanant; Robert C Griggs
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 10.422

Review 4.  A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.

Authors:  Bettina M Zimmermann; Johanna Eichinger; Matthias R Baumgartner
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.123

5.  Paying for the Orphan Drug System: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease treatments?

Authors:  Wills Hughes-Wilson; Ana Palma; Ad Schuurman; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 4.123

6.  Shining a light in the black box of orphan drug pricing.

Authors:  Eline Picavet; Thomas Morel; David Cassiman; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2014-04-27       Impact factor: 4.123

7.  Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework.

Authors:  Mike Paulden; Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Rare diseases and orphan drugs: Latvian story.

Authors:  Konstantins Logviss; Dainis Krievins; Santa Purvina
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 4.123

9.  Estimating the budget impact of orphan drugs in Sweden and France 2013-2020.

Authors:  Adam Hutchings; Carina Schey; Richard Dutton; Felix Achana; Karolina Antonov
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 4.123

10.  Orphan drugs expenditure in the Netherlands in the period 2006-2012.

Authors:  Tim A Kanters; Adri Steenhoek; Leona Hakkaart
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2014-10-11       Impact factor: 4.123

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.