Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Investigating Myths about European Pricing and Market Access New York, October 17, 2014 New York Life Sciences Marketing and Strategy Forum Paris Office Robert Dumitrescu, Partner Julia Hummelt, Director 17, Square Edouard VII, 75009 Paris France Tel. +33 1 56 69 23 90 [email protected] Boston office One Canal Park Cambridge, MA 02141, USA Tel. +1 617 231 4500 [email protected] www.simon-kucher.com Overview of today’s presentation Goal: Get up to speed on some new developments in Europe Understand how EU pricing and market access (P&MA) is different from the US “… ….. .. ….. .. ….” What’s the plan? We present the myth We have a vote We present some facts and figures We solve We want this to be interactive, so please feel free to participate, ask questions, etc. Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 2 Myth No. 1: Do you believe it’s true? “Price potential in Europe is always lower than in the US” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 3 Looking at some examples, the myth begins to ring true % premium of US average price over EU average price $8.00 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 244% $7.22 WAC / ex-manu. price per day in $ $7.00 Pulmonary arterial hypertension 100% 88% Renal cell cancer Non-small cell lung cancer Castration-resistant prostate cancer Example within diabetes - Januvia (sitagliptin): US prices vs. selected EU prices 278% Diabetes 79% 49% $6.00 350 to 360% $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 100% 200% $1.62 $1.74 FRA GER UK $1.00 $US 0% $1.60 300% Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Project experience. WAC for US, ex-manu for EU-5. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 4 The main reason is that the pricing and access “obstacle course” is getting tougher in just about every EU market Payers are creating new and unpredictable mechanisms, and manufacturers are having a difficult time navigating them to achieve favorable pricing and access conditions. NICE/SMC review and patient access schemes H2H studies, costeffectiveness, potential implementation of the ITR1 UK France Germany AMNOG2 Spain Therapeutic Positioning Reports and dual pricing … and new reforms may be on the horizon Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. 1ITR: relative therapeutic index. 2AMNOG: Arzneimittelneurodnungsgesetz. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 5 Example: Germany, once the lone holdout of free pricing, became a price-controlled market in 2011 The AMNOG reform has been in place since 2011; the objective is to agree on a “fair price”. Benefit assessment Launch 6 months Ex factory price freely set; manufacturer needs to submit a value dossier Launch of new drug or drug with new indication Early benefit assessment - Formal evaluation by IQWiG - Final verdict by G-BA Additional benefit vs. comparator? Price negotiations 6 months Price negotiations with GKV-SV Agreement? (umbrella organization of all sick funds) Price no higher than comparator OR reimbursement limit (FRP) Germany Decision 3 months Discount is valid from month 13 after launch Decision via arbitration board NOTE: Simplified process that applies in most cases, but not all! Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. BMG. G-BA. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 6 In addition, payers are becoming even more creative when current cost-containment measures are insufficient Sovaldi’s price and budget impact have triggered controversial ad-hoc mechanisms in several countries in Europe, including some dramatic threats. Sovaldi example France Proposal to create special one-off law to cap expenditure on all HCV drugs to 450m€ in 2014 and 700m€ in 2015 Italy Further proposals to unilaterally set price or even to compulsory license (!) Germany G-BA chairperson mused whether a retrospective rebate should be applied for year 1 of sales Pricing negotiations still pending EU Reimbursed, but only for the first 30,000 most severe patients with advanced cirrhosis Rumored 50% discount vs. list price Spain Price cap of 124m€ in its first year, and hidden discount bringing the price to an estimated €25,000 per patient Number of treated patients may therefore be as low as 5,000 14 EU countries signed a “joint initiative" intended to put pressure on Sovaldi and other HCV therapies to temper price demands (driven by France) This is the first time European markets have jointly and publicly announced their intention to drive down the price of a drug Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Depeches APM. El Global. Sanita. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 7 On the other hand, many orphan drugs have similar prices in the EU and US This also holds true for some recently launched therapies such as VPRIV, Kalydeco, and Lojuxta. Comparison EU5 vs. US prices – Orphan drugs 2,500 € 2,000 € 1,500 € 1,000 € 500 € 0€ VPRIV Cerezyme Elaprase France Germany Naglazyme Italy Spain Kalydeco UK Soliris Lojuxta/Juxtapid US Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Prices from October 2014. Average exchange rates from the year preceding October 12, 2014. Doses shown: VPRIV/Cerezyme: 400 units. Elaprase/Naglazyme: per mg. Kalydeco: 150mg. Soliris: 100mg. Lojuxta/Juxtapid: 5/10/20mg. Prices shown: France: ex-manu. Germany: net ex-manu including 15% discount on Cerezyme and 4% discount on all others. Italy: net ex-manu including 5+5% discounts. Spain: net ex-manu including 4% discount. UK: NHS price. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 8 And for generics, prices are sometimes even lower in the US than in Europe Clopidogrel Venlafaxine Pantoprazole 1800% 300% 600% 150% 100% 50% 0% 500% 1400% 1200% 1000% 800% 600% 400% 200% 0% EU ex-manufacturer prices per tabletin relation to US WAC price 200% EU ex-manufacturer prices per tablet in relation to US WAC price EU ex-manufacturer prices per tablet in relation to US WAC price 1600% 250% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners; US: https://pricerx.medispan.com; FRA: http://www.codage.ext.cnamts.fr; GER: https://www.lauer-fischer.de; SPA: https://botplusweb.portalfarma.com; UK: http://www.mims.co.uk New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 9 Myth No. 1: What’s the verdict? “Price potential in Europe is always lower than in the US” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 10 Myth No. 2: Do you believe it’s true? “Target prices are only attainable with an innovative contract” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 11 In some markets for some indications innovative contracting is a must — Example: Oncology in Italy Italy Examples of contracting schemes for oncology drugs in Italy Jevtana Payment by result Cost ceiling Cost sharing Risk sharing Halaven Mozobil MabThera Zevalin Torisel Removab Tarceva Herceptin-GC Tyverb Votrient Tasigna – 2nd l. Velcade Mepact Arzerra Zelboraf Torisel Erbitux - CRC Javlor Votrient Afinitor - BC Nexavar Alimta Vidaza Yondelis Caprelsa Avastin Yondelis Afinitor - RCC Xgeva Zytiga Revlimid Vectibix Iressa Erbitux - HN Tasigna - 1st l. Yervoy 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. AIFA. Press releases. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 12 In other markets, there was a short boom but then interest tapered off — Example: UK UK Risk sharing agreement for Velcade (2007) Coverage with evidence development for 4 MS drugs (2002) “MS drug risk-sharing scheme ‘a costly failure’.” Pharmatimes, 2010 Risk sharing agreement for Lucentis (2008) “NICE chief calls on drugmakers for ‘simple discounts’.” Pharmatimes, 2010 … Time Since 2011: Only simple discounts in patient access schemes (PASLU overview) Amount of innovative contracting Distribution of what the UK calls patient access schemes (PAS) as of March 2014 Free stock (n=7), dose cap, response scheme, etc. Simple discount (mostly confidential) (n=29) Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Pharmatimes. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 13 Some markets have hardly even attempted innovative contracts, and will not go much further — Example: France Risk-sharing contracts in France are to be restricted to exceptional cases only. The definition of “risk-sharing contract” was only included in the “Accord Cadre” as of December 2012. France Examples of risk-sharing contracts in France 1 Background information RisperdalConsta Long acting formulation for schizophrenia in patients currently stabilized with oral antipsychotics 2 Xolair Add-on therapy to improve asthma control 3 Glitazones Oral anti-diabetes drugs launched in 2002 Important SMR, ASMR IV by TC in 2006 4 Cimzia TNFα blocker for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis Important SMR, ASMR V by TC in 2010 Important SMR and ASMR IV by TC in 2004 Based on the number of hospitalization Contract details In case of negative outcomes: costs reimbursement and price decrease Based on the onset of a serious exacerbation (e.g. hospitalization, increase in corticoids dosage) Based on the capacity to delay the use of insulin in the long run through a longer glycemic control than available products Signed in 2013 Based on treatment discontinuation rate Predetermined end date is not public Contract outcomes Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Accord Cadre December 2012. IFIS presentation January 2013. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 14 Other markets are just beginning to experiment with innovative contracts at the national level – Example: Spain The first two innovative contracts were signed at the national level in 2013. Contracts at national level Performance-based contracts Published contracts at regional level Catalonia (Catalan Institute of Oncology): First contracts approved in May and September 2013 Non-small-cell lung cancer Contracts involve hospital products: easier patient monitoring, with manufacturer’s support Rheumatoid arthritis All hospitals in the country benefit from the agreement Diagnostic test Published contracts to date: − Multiple sclerosis (Fampyra) − Cell therapy for repairing cartilage defects of the knee (ChondroCelect) Spain Colorectal cancer Andalusia: Pulmonary hypertension Colony stimulating factors Growth hormones Financial contracts (details confidential) Price discount for the NHS (dual pricing) Price-volume agreement Utilization cap Botulinum toxin Balearic Islands: Neuro-reflexo therapy (low back pain) Protocol of use imposed Conditional price approval to be revised one year post-launch Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Project experience. El Global, “Sanidad solo financiará fampridina en pacientes que respondan al tratamiento”, October 2013. Lecture from Piedad Ferré at Simon Kucher´s Pricing Strategy Forum. “Pricing, reimbursement and market access in Spain”. September 25, 2013. Cinco Dias, “Sanidad financiará el primer fármaco de terapia celular”, May 2013. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 15 Myth No. 2: What’s the verdict? “Target prices are only attainable with an innovative contract” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 16 Myth No. 3: Do you believe it’s true? “In oncology, pricing and market access is a breeze” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 17 In the UK access continues to be a struggle in oncology NICE has made headlines over the years for being particularly restrictive. Those oncology agents that do gain access typically do so only with hidden discounts. UK Selected NICE recommendations and ICERs per QALY gained* for recently reviewed oncologics ICER per QALY gained (in 1,000s) 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Drug Recommended Not recommended ICER per QALY gained in the light of appraisal of a life-extending, end-of-life treatment Soft NICE threshold for “end-of-life” therapies Soft NICE threshold for basic costeffectiveness Vectibix Erbitux Halaven Jevtana Zytiga Yervoy Zelboraf Avastin Bosulif Zaltrap Alimta Yervoy Revlimid Indication 2nd-line mCRC 2nd-line mCRC 3rd-line BC 2nd-line mPC 2nd-line mPC 2nd-line mel. 1st-line mel. 1st-line adv. OC Prev. treat. CML mCRC NSCLC Untreat., adv. mel. Myelo. Syndromes Issue date Jan. 12 Jan. 12 Apr. 12 May 12 Jun. 12 Dec. 12 Dec. 12 May 13 Nov. 13 Mar. 14 Apr. 14 Jul. 14 Sept. 14 n/a n/a n/a n/a Discount Discount Discount n/a n/a n/a n/a Discount Cost cap PAS Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners, NICE. *Selected examples: ICER per QALY gained depends on the underlying calculation model and the selected comparator. The figures displayed here are the most plausible estimates documented in the respective NICE guidance. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 18 In Germany, Bosulif illustrates how even orphan oncology drugs can become trapped in the inflexible AMNOG process The initial disagreement was supposedly in the choice of comparator therapy for price benchmarking/ starting point—considering that for orphan drugs with an annual revenue of <50m€* the G-BA does not define an official appropriate comparator therapy. Comparator from Pfizer perspective: Comparator from GKV-SV perspective: Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors with similar indication and high price level Non-specific cytostatic drugs Annual therapy cost: significantly below €69,900 Annual therapy cost of Bosulif: €69,900 Price negotiations for Bosulif (bosutinib) “The GKV-SV wanted to compare Bosulif with drugs that are not in line with the current medical treatment standards.” Germany November 2013: Opt-Out: Cancellation by Pfizer of the rebate negotiations with the GKV-SV after the first negotiation round - Statement by Pfizer December 2013: Surprise agreement with the GKV-SV (§130b discount of 44%) and Bosulif was reimbursed as of February 2014 “There is no perspective for an agreement on a reimbursement price which would reflect the benefit of Bosulif for the treatment of a very narrow patient population.” - Statement by Pfizer Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Aerztezeitung, Pfizer. *Revenue of the drug with statutory sick funds at pharmacy selling prices inclusive VAT within the last 12 calendar months. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 19 In France, even late line oncology drugs have struggled in recent years, particularly those with IV administration France Product Launch indication EMA date Admin. form ASMR rating Avastin mCRC Jan 2005 IV ASMR II vs. therapeutic strategy Jul 2005 Nov 2005 Velcade 3rd line MM Apr 2005 IV ASMR II vs. therapeutic strategy May 2005 May 2005 Yondelis 2nd line STS Sep 2007 IV ASMR V vs. therapeutic strategy STS failed, listed Jan 2011 for OC only In DRG for STS Abraxane 2nd line mBC Jan 2008 IV ASMR IV vs. Taxol Failed In DRG Arzerra 2nd line CLL Apr 2010 IV ASMR V vs. therapeutic strategy Mar 2012 Pending Halaven 3rd line mBC Mar 2011 IV ASMR IV vs. therapeutic strategy Mar 2012 Jul 2012 Mar 2011 IV ASMR IV vs. therapeutic strategy, later revised to ASMR III Failed at first, Jul 2013 Sep 2013 Jul 2011 IV ASMR IV vs. therapeutic strategy Apr 2012 Mar 2013 Jevtana Yervoy 2nd line CRPC 2nd line melanoma T2A exclusion list date Price publication date Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. EMA. HAS. ATIH. BDM_IT. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 20 Sometimes, the tide can turn though – and turn again UK Cancer drugs fund (CDF) provides welcome relief for UK cancer patients However, times of ‘guaranteed access’ via the CDF may be over soon August 27, 2014 “The CDF provides an additional £200m each year to enable patients to access drugs that are not routinely funded by the NHS. It was established in 2010 and will run until the end of March 2016.” CDF homepage CDF budget was increased from £200m to £280m per year … falling short of the projected expected spend of £360m The NHS has agreed with proposals from the CDF to: – Officially begin assessing price. Recent CDF panel meetings have involved price as a topic of consideration – Implement two new assessment processes: Drugs not approved by NICE routinely got access via the CDF 1. Re-evaluation to delist drugs with the least clinical benefit and a confidential process assessing “the cost per patient in relation to the clinical benefit delivered” 2. Commissioning through evaluation for new drugs Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. NICE. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 21 Myth No. 3: What’s the verdict? “In oncology, pricing and market access is a breeze” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 22 Myth No. 4: Do you believe it’s true? “Beyond national price negotiations, it’s smooth sailing” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 23 In many EU markets taking the “national hurdle” is not the end of the journey Regional level Sometimes, even the local level can be a challenge National level Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 24 The majority of Italian regions have regional formularies Regions are responsible for formulary inclusion decisions and managing usage restrictions or recommendations. Valle d’Aosta Trentino Alto Adige FriuliVenezia Giulia EmiliaRomagna Time to inclusion in regional formularies, days post EMA AIFA approval Umbria Basilicata Sicilia No regional formulary Regional formulary Formularies in Areas Vastas Italy 226 371 396 Veneto 416 Val d’Aosta 420 Campania 426 Emilia Romagna 439 Trento 445 Sardegna 445 Calabria 502 Toscana 504 Lazio 510 Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. SIFO Commissioni terpautiche e prontuari regionali, di area vasta e locali, 2012. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 25 Some Italian regions have also started to create their own HTA processes, although intensity of activities is still low Organization Activities Evaluation of national and regional program Evaluation of health social services Monitoring system and performance evaluation Elaboration of guidelines Control the adoption of high technology at regional level Support to the organization of implementation of new technology Regional Support to the regional commission through: Economic and scientific evaluation of arguments discussed by the regional commission Analysis of hospital consumption Epidemiological studies on drugs use Orientate the planning of adoption of technology at regional and local level Support to the organization of implementation of new technology Identification of priority for the NHS Analysis of the efficacy documentation and identification of gaps Analysis of the cost-effectiveness for the Regional HS National Region Italy Emilia Romagna Emilia Romagna Veneto Piemonte Lombardia Training Scientific and cultural development of HTA at national level Promotion of innovation and quality in healthcare Development of comparative cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of health services National level Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners, www.cevas.it, www.uvef.it, www. Official bulletin of Lombardy of 2nd September 2008, www.sihta.it; http://www2.aress.piemonte.it/cms/settori-tematici/health-technologyassessment/presentazione-hta.html New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 26 Decentralized healthcare management makes for a fragmented market in Spain Healthcare management initiatives such as electronic prescribing systems vary by region, but new measures driven by the economic crisis aim to unify these and reduce costs. Spain Regional differentiation Regions are responsible for healthcare management, including (drug) budget allocation In many policy areas there are no common approaches. Examples are: Electronic prescribing system Policy on generics Hospital drug evaluations Prescribing indicators Treatment guidelines Joint regional drug evaluation committee Hospital drug regional evaluations/ formulary High interest New laws implemented as part of austerity measures aim to unify healthcare management and reduce regional variations Medium interest Low interest Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 27 A 2013 survey confirmed high heterogeneity in access of innovative oncologic agents across Spanish regions… …and heterogeneity even across hospitals within the same region. Spain Market access inequities A 2013 survey by SEOM* confirmed what had been rumored since many years: patients in Spain have unequal access to innovative oncology agents Inequities where found at various levels: 1. Non-access to some products 2. Prescribing hurdles for some products 3. Differences across hospitals even within the same region Example: Selected hospitals in Spain prefer either Iressa or Tarceva for the treatment of EGFR+ NSCLC, and sometimes the non-preferred option is not available at all 4. Andalucía and Catalonia had the most frequent restrictions Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Press release from diariomedico. *SEOM= Spanish Society of Medical Oncology. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 28 Purchasing groups in France are organized at different levels and have become well established France Major healthcare purchasing groups in France GPO Description Representation level UniHA Public purchasing group for the 32 CHU1 and 24 CH2 in France National Public UGAP Public purchasing group involved in the procurement for the public sector National Public CAHPP Private purchasing group managing around 70% of the French private hospital procurement National Private CACIC Private purchasing group managing the procurement of various products for a large range of healthcare centers3 National Public + private AGEPS & Resah-idf Local purchasing groups for the public hospitals in the AP-HP4 network and Ile-de-France region City of Paris (AGEPS) IdF region (Resah-idf) Public UNICANCER Achats Manages group purchasing for most of the 20 CLCC5 National Oncology competence Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners; 1 university hospital centers; 2 hospital centers; 3 hospitals, elderly care centers, etc.; 4 Paris hospitals; 5 oncology centers New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 29 Myth No. 4: What’s the verdict? “Beyond national price negotiations, it’s smooth sailing” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 30 Myth No. 5: Do you believe it’s true? “You can avoid the referencing problem by careful launch sequencing” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 31 Referencing at launch has been an issue since years, and now countries are adding low-priced markets to their baskets With more countries included in reference baskets, access decisions are becoming increasingly interconnected. Example: External price referencing in Spain Until 2004 France Germany Netherlands Italy EU Other examples Additional reference countries in 2011 Greece Extension of reference basket 2004: Austria UK Belgium Denmark Greece Spain 2011: Czech Rep Ireland Romania Sweden Switz. Extension of reference basket Before 2009: After 2009: Any EU country* can be referenced External price referencing is no longer included as an explicit criterion in Spain EU Since 2012 Germany Introduction of (informal) price referencing; attempt to reference the actual net selling price (including manufacturer rebates) Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. *Any EU country which is not subject to any exceptional or transitional intellectual property regimes for pricing. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 32 Increasing re-referencing is significantly limiting the positive benefits of optimized launch sequencing Effects of a carefully orchestrated launch sequence may disappear after a relatively short period of time. Impact of re-referencing Re-referencing frequency Price level Initial referencing After rereferencing Netherlands: twice a year Greece: increased frequency Switzerland: introduced regular re-referencing Spain: re-referencing on a regular basis Italy and France: may re-reference, typically if specified in the P&R contract In Germany, the AMNOG process can be reinitiated, potentially leading to re-referencing Many smaller EU countries re-reference regularly or irregularly Conceptual Time Re-referencing, in conjunction with extended referencing baskets, can be the starting point for a downward price spiral Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 33 There is evidence that price levels in Eastern Europe are beginning to contaminate Western European markets Price levels are often significantly lower than the Western European average. Price differential versus EU-4 average for key oncology therapies 115% Price as % of average EU-4 ex-manu price 110% 105% AVG EU-4 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% Glivec Alimta Avastin Erbitux Bulgaria Tarceva Croatia Nexavar Sutent Romania Tasigna Serbia Iressa Jevtana Zytiga Slovenia Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners. Analysis from 2012. UK not included. New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 34 The nightmare scenario: A price cut in one country can have a disastrous effect on pan-European profitability This real example shows how a price cut in one country at LoE had a significant impact on price levels in various other European countries. Upper limit: €1.62 Simon-Kucher Project Example Ex manufacturer price for Medication A €1.62 €1.37 €1.01 €1.04 €1.06 €1.15 €1.18 €1.12 €1.23 €1.29 €1.20 €1.09 €0.98 €0.84 €0.62 €0.50 €0.90 €0.50 €0.45 New lower limit: €0.20 Hungary €0.22 Countries Czech Rep Spain Germany Poland €0.39 €0.28 €0.20 Current Prices €0.67 €0.62 New EU price corridor: 87.9% €0.56 €0.76 Old EU price corridor: 48.3% €0.92 €0.95 €0.87 Price Reduction Old lower limit: €0.84 €1.48 €1.48 €1.40 €1.43 Italy Greece France Austria Norway Future Prices Portugal Finland Belgium Denmark Sweden Nethlnds UK Internal Referencing External Referencing Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 35 Myth No. 5: What’s the verdict? “You can avoid the referencing problem by careful launch sequencing” Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 36 Key takeaway: It’s all a myth! 1. Despite some major structural reforms, EU payers continue to look for ad-hoc savings opportunities to limit growth or even reduce overall healthcare spend 2. EU payers are changing the rules continuously and are learning from each other. Effective cost reduction mechanisms have spread quickly 3. With few exceptions, use of risk-sharing type contracts remains limited, and they may even be losing favor among the earliest payer advocates 4. Payers are no longer afraid of denying access, sometimes even to innovative products in sensitive indications like oncology 5. Sub-national payers are assuming more important roles in budget control. Your affiliates are under pressure on many fronts, and must balance increasing resource demands with diminished revenues due to payer-imposed price or access cuts 6. There is increasing sophistication by payers when referencing and re-referencing other countries. A good launch sequence only helps for a limited time Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners New York Life Sciences Forum_Investigating Myths about European P&MA_October 17, 2014 37 Amsterdam Barcelona Beijing Bonn Boston Thank you One Canal Park Cambridge, MA Brussels 02141, USA Cologne Tel. +1 617 231 4500 Copenhagen Dubai Frankfurt Istanbul London Luxembourg Madrid Milan Munich New York Paris 17 Square Edouard VI, Paris, France San Francisco Tel. +33 156692375 Santiago de Chile São Paulo Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto Vienna Warsaw Zurich www.simon-kucher.com