Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2012-3
A Just Distribution of Health Care in the Case of Orphan Medicinal Products: Aligning the Interests of European Economic Integration and National Welfare Policy
Since market integration measures touch upon issues that are the sole responsibility of the Member States, the efforts of the European Union (EU) to achieve a harmonised internal market clash, in some areas, with national welfare policy. Such a conflict exists where the allocation of health resources is concerned. The EU is very proactive in fostering research and development of medicinal products aimed at treating patients who suffer from rare diseases. The European incentive scheme (Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000) has been a considerable success but, although products are developed, they are not necessarily available to the patient. This is due to the fact that decisions about the price and the reimbursement of these (very expensive) products are made at the national level.
This article draws up a framework for distributing limited health resources where medicinal products for rare diseases (orphan medicine) are concerned. The provision in the Patients' Rights Directive (Dir. 2011/27/EU) on cooperation in health care among the Member States is discussed through the lens of ‘solidarity’ (understood as mutual cooperation) in order to align and remedy the deficits in the system and guarantee the patient access to the product in a timely and equitable manner.
AndersonE.S. (1999) ‘What is the Point of Equality?’, 109Ethics, 287.
2.
BarakA.NandiJ.S. (2001) ‘Orphan drugs: Pricing reimbursement and patient access’, 5International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare, 299.
3.
BarnardC. (2005) ‘EU Citizenship and the Principle of Solidarity’, in SpaventaE.DouganM. (eds.), Social Welfare and EU Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
4.
DanielsN. (1981) ‘Health-Care Needs and Distributive Justice’, 10Philosophy and Public Affairs, 146.
5.
DanielsN. (1985a) Just Health Care, Cambridge, Cambridge Universtiy Press.
6.
DanielsN. (1985b) ‘Fair Equality of Opportunity and Decent Minimums: A Reply to Buchanan’, 14Philosophy and Public Affairs, 106.
7.
DanielsN. (2001) ‘Justice, Health, and Healthcare’, 1The American Journal of Bioethics, 10.
8.
DanielsN. (2008) Just Health, Meeting health needs fairly, Cambridge, Cambridge Universtiy Press.
9.
DanielsN.SabinJ. (1997) ‘Limits to healthcare: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers’, 26Philosophy and Public Affairs, 303.
DenisA. (2010a) ‘Budget impact analysis of orphan drugs in Belgium: Estimates from 2008 to 2013’, 13Journal of Medical Economics, 295.
12.
DenisA. (2010b), ‘Issues Surrounding Orphan Disease and Orphan Drug Policies in Europe’, 8Applied Health Economics Health Policy, 343.
13.
DimasiJ.A. (2003) ‘The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs’, 22Journal of Health Economics, 151.
14.
DimasiJ.A.GrabowskiH.G. (2007) ‘The Cost of Biopharmaceutical R and D: Is Biotech Different?’, 28Managerial and Decision Economics, 469.
15.
DouganM.SpaventaE. (2005) ‘“Wish You Weren't Here…” New Models of Social Solidarity in the European Union’, in DouganM.SpaventaE. (eds.), Social Welfare and EU Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
16.
EvanV. (2010) ‘Orphan Drug Protection’ in ShorthoseS. (ed.), Guide to EU Pharmaceutical Regulatory Law, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International.
17.
FernerR.E.HugesD.A. (2010) ‘The problem of orphan drugs: Incentives to make orphan drugs should be proportionate to their benefits (editorial)’, 341BMJ, 1059
18.
FerreraM. (2006) The Boundaries of Welfare: European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
19.
HadornD.C. (1992) ‘Emerging Parallels in the American Health Care and Legal-Judicial Systems Rationing Health Care: Social, Political and Legal Perspectives’, 18American Journal of Law and Medicine, 73.
20.
HamC. (1999) ‘Tragic choices in health care: Lessons from the Child B case’, 319BMJ, 1258.
21.
HawkesN.CohenD. (2010) ‘What Makes an Orphan Drug?’, 341BMJ, 1076.
22.
HerveyT.K. (2011) ‘Cooperation Between Health Care Authorities in the Proposed Directive on Patient's Rights in Cross-Border Healthcare’, in van de GrondenJ.W. (eds.) Health Care and EU Law, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press.
23.
HollisAidan (2005) ‘Drugs for Rare Diseases: Paying for Innovation’, in BeachC. M. (eds.) Health services restructuring in Canada: New evidence and new directions, Kingston, Ontario, Queens's University, John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy.
24.
KawachiI.KennedyB.P. (1997) ‘Socioeconomic determinants of health: Health and social cohesion: Why care about income inequality?’, 314BMJ, 1037.
25.
LampingW. (2005) ‘European integration and health policy: A peculiar relationship’, in SteffenM. (ed.) Health Governance in Europe: Issues challenges and theories, Milton Park, Abingdon, Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science.
26.
LampingW. (2008) ‘Grenzverschiebung. Das Verhältnis von Sozialpolitik und Wirtschaftspolitik auf EU-Ebene und die Neubestimmung des “Sozialen”’, in EversA.HeinzeR.G. (eds.) Sozialpolitik: Ökonomisierung und Entgrenzung, Heidelberg, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
27.
LampingW. (2010) ‘Mission Impossible? Limits and Perils of Institutionalizing Post-National Social Policy’, in RossM.Borgmann-PrebilY. (eds.) Promoting Solidarity in the European Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
LoughnotD. (2005) ‘Potential Interactions of the Orphan Drug Act and Pharmacogenomics: A Flood of Orphan Drugs and Abuses’, 31American Journal of Law and Medicine, 365.
30.
LynchJ.W. (1998) ‘Income Inequality and Mortality in Metropolitan Areas of the United States’, 88American Journal of Public Health, 1074.
NeergaardU. (2011) ‘EU Health Care Law in a Constitutional Light: Distribution of Competences, Notions of “Solidarity” and “Social Europe’”, in van de GrondenJ.W. (eds.) Health Care and EU Law, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press.
33.
NewdickC. (2006) ‘Citizenship, Free Movement and Health Care: Cementing Individual Rights by Corroding Social Solidarity’, 43Common Market Law Review, 1645.
34.
OrofinoJ. (2010) ‘Global Spending on Orphan Drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain’, 8Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 301.
35.
RhodesR. (2011) ‘Justice, Medicine, and Medical Care’, 1The American Journal of Bioethics, 32.
36.
RiedelE. (2010) ‘Charta Artikel 35 Gesundheitsschutz’, in MeyerJ. (ed.), Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, Nomos.
37.
RiederC.R. (2010), ‘When Patients Exit, What Happens to Solidarity?’, in RossM.Borgmann-PrebilY. (eds.) Promoting Solidarity in the European Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
38.
RohdeD.D. (2000) ‘The Orphan Drug Act: An Engine of Innovation? At What Cost?’, 55Food and Drug Law Journal, 125.
39.
RoosJ.C.P. (2010) ‘Orphan drug pricing may warrant a competition law investigation’, 341BMJ, 1084.
40.
SavulescuJ. (2001) ‘Justice and Healthcare: The Right to a Decent Minimum, Not Equality of Opportunity’, 1The American Journal of Bioethics, 1a.
41.
SilversA. (2001) ‘No Basis for Justice: Equal Opportunity, Normal Functioning, and the Distribution of Healthcare’, 1The American Journal of Bioethics, 35.
42.
SimeonsS. (2011) ‘Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: The need for more transparency’, 6Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 1.
43.
StjernøS. (2006) Solidarity in Europe: The History of an Idea, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
44.
WilkinsonR.G. (1996) Unhealthy Societies: The afflictions of inequality, London, Routledge.
