Background Reimbursement policies influence access of patients to orphan drugs in the European countries. Objectives To provide a comprehensive description of orphan drug reimbursement policies and to assess reimbursement decision-making process in the EU-CEE countries as well as the impact of the type of approval and disease on reimbursement decisions. Methods For each drug, the information regarding conditional approval or approval under exceptional circumstances was obtained from the EMA website. The reimbursement status for analyzed drugs was collected in a questionnaire survey performed in a group of experts in reimbursement policy. The agreement between countries was assessed using the κ coefficient, nominal variables tests were compared using the χ2 test or the Fisher exact test. The impact of the EMA’s conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances was assessed using logistic regression and presented as an odds ratio (OR). Results The analysis revealed that most orphan drugs were authorized for the treatment of oncological or metabolic diseases [36 drugs (38%) and 22 drugs (23%), respectively]. The shares of reimbursed orphan drugs varied significantly ( p = 0.0031) from 6.3% in Latvia to 27.4% in Poland. No correlation ( r = 0.02; p = 0.9583) with GDP per capita was observed. The highest agreement in reimbursement decisions was observed between Estonia and Lithuania, and the lowest – between Estonia and Latvia, with kappa of 0.69 and 0.11, respectively. Significant impact of the type of approval and reimbursement status was observed for Czechia, Lithuania and Slovakia where conditional approval and exceptional circumstances negatively influenced reimbursement decision. Type of disease has significant influence on reimbursement decision in 4 out of 10 analyzed countries with significant outweigh of positive decisions for oncological diseases. Conclusion In considered countries specific regulations on reimbursement of orphan drugs are valid but in Lithuania and Romania no formal HTA process was employed; in case of some countries higher ICER values for orphans are used. The share of reimbursed orphan drugs varied significantly across the countries, but it was not associated with GDP per capita.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review reimbursement environment as well as pricing and reimbursement requirements for drugs in selected Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries.Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was performed in the period from November 2016 to March 2017 among experts involved in reimbursement matters from CEE countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania. A review of requirements for reimbursement and implications of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) was performed to compare the issues in above-mentioned countries. For each specified country, data for reimbursement costs, total pharmaceutical budget, and total public health care budget in the years 2014 and 2015 were also collected. Questionnaires were distributed via emails and feedback data were obtained in the same way. Additional questions, if any, were also submitted to respondents by email. Pricing and reimbursement data were valid for March 2017.Results: The survey revealed that the relation of drug reimbursement costs to total public healthcare spending ranged from 0.12 to 0.21 in the year 2014 and 2015 (median value). It also revealed that pricing criteria for drugs, employed in the CEE countries, were quite similar. External reference pricing as well as internal reference pricing were common in mentioned countries. Positive reimbursement lists were valid in all countries of the CEE region, negative ones were rarely used; reimbursement decisions were regularly revised and updated in the majority of countries. Copayment was common and available levels of reimbursement differed within and between the countries and ranged from 20 to 100%. Risk-sharing schemes were often in use, especially in the case of innovative, expensive drugs. Generic substitution was also possible in all analyzed CEE countries, while some made it mandatory. HTA was carried out in almost all of the considered CEE countries and HTA dossier was obligatory for submitting a pricing and reimbursement application.Conclusions: Pricing and reimbursement requirements are quite similar in the CEE region although some differences were identified. HTA evaluations are commonly used in considered countries.

Biological products for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis usually are cost effective for healthcare systems in Europe, but they are huge financial burden due to the high number of patients and the significant budget impact. The expected saving from introduction on the market of biosimilars are significant and are linked to better access and affordability. The aim of this study was to conduct comparative price analysis of biological products for rheumatoid arthritis therapy among seventeen EU countries. The point of view is that of the Bulgarian pricing and reimbursement system and the chosen countries are those from external reference basket for prices comparison at manufacturing level. All authorized biological products by EMA with therapeutic indication rheumatoid arthritis were selected. The access for treatment is evaluated as the availability of the product on the market and the prices level. We assessed the availability of all trade names in the price lists of the observed countries. The prices data was obtained from the official web pages of the responsible institutions up to date December 2017. The results show that four out of all six INNs have authorized biosimilars in EMA. Despite its earlier authorization biosimilar adalimumab is not present in any of the price lists of countries. From all eighteen countries only in Lithuania and Estonia there were no published prices of any of the selected medicinal products. Countries with higher number of biosimilar prices are Spain and France. Differences in manufacturers’ prices of reference biological products in selected countries in comparison with the lowest manufacturer price are higher with 22 to 69% while the retail prices between 62 and 95%. Differences are mostly notable for rituximab, and less notable for tocilizumab. Manufacturers’ and retail prices of biosimilar products were established only for three INNs (etanercept, rituximab, and infliximab). Manufacturers’ prices differ between 26 and 75%, while retail prices differ between 40 and 92% for biosimilars. Comparison of the differences between manufacturer prices of reference biological product and biosimilars shows 36% difference for etanercept, 39% for rituximab, and 31% for infliximab, while at retail level the differences are 11, 86, and 143%, respectively. The limitation of the study is that the prices are the official ones without discounts due to confidentiality and the real prices may be lower. The second limitation is that the methodology for pricing differs in the countries and this could also influence the prices on both levels (manufacturer and retail). Introduction of biosimilars on the national markets led to significant decrease in reimbursed prices paid by public funds and thus might benefit the patients’ access to biological therapy. The decrease of prices after biosimilars entrance on the market is not as notable as for commodity generics.