Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding?

Ultra-orphan drugs are medicines used to treat exceptionally rare diseases that are chronically debilitating or life-threatening. Low patient numbers make it difficult for pharmaceutical companies to recoup research and development costs, and consequently these medicines are generally expensive on a per patient basis. European Union (EU) regulations promote the development of orphan drugs; but to contain costs, some EU healthcare systems assess the cost-effectiveness of therapies when deciding if they should be funded. As ultra-orphan drugs are invariably cost-ineffective, factors in addition to cost-effectiveness need to be considered if ultra-orphan drugs are to be provided by public health services. Health service funding of ultra-orphan drugs, which varies across the EU and within the UK, has led to geographical inequities in patients' access to treatment. In some instances, support for these drugs would appear to have been approved on the basis that diseases that are rare and severe are a special case. We explore whether ultra-orphan drugs merit special status by considering efficiency, effectiveness and equity criteria. Mechanisms are discussed for creating a policy that would reduce geographical inequalities in provision across Europe.

[1]  H. Kohli Scottish Medicines Consortium. , 2005, The National medical journal of India.

[2]  D C Hadorn,et al.  Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. , 1991, JAMA.

[3]  Stephen Chapman,et al.  Setting up an outcomes guarantee for pharmaceuticals: new approach to risk sharing in primary care , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  A. Williams,et al.  Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. , 1997, Health economics.

[5]  Jeff Richardson,et al.  The rule of rescue. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[6]  Elias Mossialos,et al.  Regulating Pharmaceuticals In Europe: Striving For Efficiency, Equity And Quality , 2004 .

[7]  R. Deber,et al.  Managing public payment for high-cost, high-benefit treatment: enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher's disease in Ontario. , 2001, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[8]  R. Busse,et al.  Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development , 2005, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[9]  No cure, no pay , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  C. Sudlow,et al.  Problems with UK government's risk sharing scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  J. Lang,et al.  Perspectives Perspectives Perspectives Perspectives Perspectives Disincentives for Orphan Vaccine Development Development of Orphan Vaccines: an Industry Perspective , 2022 .

[12]  Alan Williams,et al.  What Could be Nicer than NICE , 2004 .

[13]  A. Tsuchiya,et al.  Review of the literature , 1941, International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery.

[14]  Tau Fluvalinate,et al.  The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products , 1997 .

[15]  M. Garland Setting health care priorities in Oregon. , 1991, Health matrix.