With the arrival of new, mainly anti-cancer, drugs which are targeted at small populations and which are very/extremely high priced, international discussions are intensifying how to deal with the budget consequences. Especially when such a specific medicine does not reach 100% efficacy.
One of the lines of thinking, proposed by the pharma industry, consists of making definitive payment dependend upon achieved individual therapeutic results. So if there is no result, there will be no payment.
At GIMS we welcome this concept, but at the same time argue that this concept should ALSO be applied to other groups of less expensive medicines. Then industry would also be more interested in having a positive influence on the results of other chain partners.
In the end, medicines are ‘just a mean’ in reaching a desired health result, or therapeutic outcome, for which society is willing/able to pay.
EFPIA (being the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations) states it very clearly in their Annual Report 2015:
‘Our Vision: We support a vision of outcomes driven, sustainable healthcare systems ……..and ensure the highest security of the medicines supply chain.’
‘Our Commitment: Improving patient outcomes……and improving patient safety…..By working in partnership with all health care stakeholders, we seek to develop practical solutions to make these goals a reality.’
At GIMS we warmly welcome these explicit words, commitments and co-responsibilities.
GIMS foundation is proud to present, as a co-production with Dr. Jennifer Sellin from Maastricht University, a scientific article with a judicial focus on the relation between Medication Safety, Human Rights and the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Medication Safety, Human Rights and the Pharmaceutical Industry
In the ever intensifying discussions about the cost of new, and very expensive (oncology) drugs, a widely heared argument from industry is that they are ‘obliged’ to their shareholders to perform financially this well. Otherwise they would not be able to attract investors and therefor their output of innovative medicines will be endangered.
An interesting development is that there is building up more pressure from big investors, like pension funds and ‘society sensitive’ banks, to also consider the effects on society as a whole of the strict financial focus Big Pharma feels it has to oblige to.
Can activistic share holders alter the direction of the developments?
Then they might also take in consideration that ‘inviting’ or pushing , Big Pharma to take active co-responsibilty for the Medication Safety related issues is a desirable societal goal aswell. GIMS can help!
Big Pharma is an industry famous for ongoing excellent financial results and thereby loved by investors and analysts.
The Dutch business paper ‘Financiële Dagblad’ produced an article, by Thieu Vaessen on 8 February, which made quite clear how good the industry is doing:
Big Pharma: operational profit margin: 29,4%
Average on 300 international firms: operational profit margin 11,8%
GIMS wants to state: we all find it very logical that car manufacturers have invested for decennia heavely in the (direct) safety of their products, isn’t it then equilly logical if Big Pharma does the same for the (indirect) safety of their products??
Money can’t be the problem.