Orphan drugs are designed to treat rare disease. Multiple countries have approved regulations that support the creation of new orphan drugs. The regulations directly and indirectly affect orphan drug markets and contribute to classifying a country as being more or less market based. A more market-based country is recognized as functioning closest to free market principles, where the actions of supply, demand, and pricing operate with minimal government involvement. However, little information exists on how country market differences affect the adoption of these orphan drugs. This study argues that relationships exist between country market-based economic factors and the adoption of orphan drugs. This research uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, drawing on orphan drug adoption of 13 marketed orphan drugs in France, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the US. Results show a statistically significant but negative relationship between the degree to which a country is market based and the adoption of orphan drugs. Results suggest that governments and regulators in less market-based countries support market factors that result in a more efficient delivery of orphan drug products to patients with rare diseases.
HaffnerME. Orphan drug product regulation—United States. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;40(2):84–88.
2.
CutlerDM. The demise of the blockbuster?N Engl J Med. 2007;356(13):1292–1293.
3.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. More than 400 medicines in development to treat or prevent rare diseases. In 2011 Orphan Drugs in Development for Rare Diseases. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 1–45.
4.
MillerTHolmesK. 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation; 2010.
5.
Sala-i-MartinX. The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. KSchwab, ed. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2010.
6.
EdwardsCArmian-HawleyHZhangZ. The relationship between market-based pricing and biopharmaceutical innovation. Manag Care. 2004;13(6 suppl):23–25.
7.
CalfeeJE. The increasing necessity for market-based pharmaceutical prices. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(suppl 1):47–57.
8.
NicholsLMGinsburgPBBerensonRAChristiansonJHurleyRE. Are market forces strong enough to deliver efficient health care systems? Confidence is waning. Health Affairs. 2004;23(2):8–21.
9.
ScottRSolomonSMcGowanJ. Applying economic principles to health care. Emerg Infec Dis. 2001;7(2):282–285.
10.
ButlerSM. A new policy framework for health care markets. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(2):22–24.
11.
GwartneyJHallJLawsonR.2010 economic freedom dataset. In: Economic Freedom of the World: 2011 Annual Report. 2011:1–221.
12.
HankeSHWaltersSJ. Economic freedom, prosperity, and equality: a survey. Cato J. 1997;17(2):117–146.
13.
ChauffourJ-P. On the Relevance of Freedom and Entitlement in Development: New Empirical Evidence (1975–2007). Policy Research Working Paper 5660. The World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, International Trade Department; 2011; 1(1):1–37.
14.
RogersEM. New product adoption and diffusion. J Consum Res. 1976;2(4):290–301.
15.
DupontAGVan WilderPB. Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71(4):488–496.
16.
VarolNCosta-i-FontJMcGuireA.Explaining Early Adoption on New Medicines: Regulation, Innovation and Scale. CESIFO Working Paper No. 3459. 2011: 1–32.
17.
DanzonPMTaylorE. Drug pricing and value in oncology. Oncologist. 2010;15(suppl 1):24–31.
18.
DanzonPMWangYRWangL. The impact of price regulation on the launch delay of new drugs—evidence from twenty-five major markets in the 1990’s. Health Econ. 2005;14(3):269–292.
19.
CohenJFadenLPredarisSYoungB. Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison. Eur J Health Econ. 2007;8(3):253–266.
20.
‘t HoenE. The Global Politics of Pharmaceutical Monopoly Power: Drug Patents, Access, Innovation and the Application of the WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. AMB Publishers; 2009 :1–136.
21.
MorganSKennedyJ. Prescription drug accessibility and affordability in the United States and abroad. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2010;89:1–12.
22.
McClellanMKesslerDTECHInvestigators. A global analysis of technological change in health care: the case of heart attacks. Health Aff(Millwood). 1999;18(3):250–255.
23.
HashimotoHNoguchiHHeidenreichP. The diffusion of medical technology, local conditions, and technology re-invention: a comparative case study on coronary stenting. Health Policy, 2006;79(2-3):221–230.
24.
NewhouseJP. The erosion of the medical marketplace. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 1981;2:1–34.
25.
NewhouseJP. Has the erosion of the medical marketplace ended?J Health Polit Policy Law. 1988;13(2):263–278.
26.
FretheimAOxmanA. International variation in prescribing antihypertensive drugs: its extent and possible explanations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5(1):21.
27.
Chaix-CouturierCDurand-ZaleskiIJollyDDurieuxP. Effects of financial incentives on medical practice: results from a systemic review of the literature and methodological issues. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12(2):133–142.
28.
LiuY-MKao YangY-HHsiehC-R. The determinants of the adoption of pharmaceutical innovation: evidence from Taiwan. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):919–927.
29.
OrofinoJSotoJCasadoMA. Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(5):301–315.
30.
IMS Health. Data assets, IMS prescription data [online database]. Accessed August 8, 2012.
31.
The World Medicines Situation. Paris: World Health Organization; 2004:151.
MillarMCoastJAshcroftR. Are methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection targets fair to those with other types of healthcare-associated infection or cost-effective?J Hosp Infect. 2008;69(1):1–5.
40.
FernerREHughesDA. The problem of orphan drugs. BMJ. 2010;341:c6456.
