OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide an up-to-date description as well as comparative analysis of the national characteristics of pharmaceutical external price referencing (EPR) in Europe. METHODS: Review of the country-specific PPRI (Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information) Pharma Profiles written by representatives of the PPRI Network. The Profiles were analysed according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: Of 28 analysed European countries 24 applied EPR in 2010. The majority of countries have statutory rules to implement EPR. Most countries had less than 10 countries in their reference baskets. Higher income countries tend to include higher income countries in their basket, whereas lower income countries refer to lower income countries. Taking the average price of all countries in the basket as the basis to calculate the national price was the most common strategy (n=8). The methodology of EPR has changed in most European countries over the past 10 years (n=19). CONCLUSIONS: EPR is a widely used pricing policy in Europe and is still actively used as well as adjusted by national authorities. However, we still see room for improvement by implementing more detailed legislations in terms of the revision of prices and by identifying alternative countries in case a product is not on the market. We also see the need for formal information sharing (e.g. congresses dedicated to pricing strategies and systems) with other public pricing authorities to learn about the different EPR methodologies as well as the national experiences. These congresses might also give room to better understand national pricing methods including discussions on possible limitations of these pricing methods.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide an up-to-date description as well as comparative analysis of the national characteristics of pharmaceutical external price referencing (EPR) in Europe. METHODS: Review of the country-specific PPRI (Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information) Pharma Profiles written by representatives of the PPRI Network. The Profiles were analysed according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: Of 28 analysed European countries 24 applied EPR in 2010. The majority of countries have statutory rules to implement EPR. Most countries had less than 10 countries in their reference baskets. Higher income countries tend to include higher income countries in their basket, whereas lower income countries refer to lower income countries. Taking the average price of all countries in the basket as the basis to calculate the national price was the most common strategy (n=8). The methodology of EPR has changed in most European countries over the past 10 years (n=19). CONCLUSIONS: EPR is a widely used pricing policy in Europe and is still actively used as well as adjusted by national authorities. However, we still see room for improvement by implementing more detailed legislations in terms of the revision of prices and by identifying alternative countries in case a product is not on the market. We also see the need for formal information sharing (e.g. congresses dedicated to pricing strategies and systems) with other public pricing authorities to learn about the different EPR methodologies as well as the national experiences. These congresses might also give room to better understand national pricing methods including discussions on possible limitations of these pricing methods.