The pharmaceutical market in the Czech Republic
is undergoing a gradual shift in decision-making practices, which may
significantly impact pricing and reimbursement regulations as well as the
entire pharmaceutical sector. Section 39c(2)(b) of the Public Health Insurance
Act has been in use for a long time; however, its true potential to influence
reimbursement dynamics is only now becoming apparent. The uncertainty arises
from the gradual convergence of differences between innovative biological
molecules entering the market and those already reimbursed. The concept of
comparably effective therapy thus becomes a risk factor for new medicinal
products.
How Does the New Approach Work? In a recent reimbursement revision
decision regarding JAK inhibitors (Ref. No. SUKLS274309/2022), SUKL determined
the reimbursement for certain indications based on the daily costs of
comparably effective therapy. This means that medicinal products were not
necessarily placed in the same reference group as the compared therapies, yet
their reimbursement was set according to cheaper alternatives from another
reference group, which included, for instance, generic drugs. In the case of
filgotinib, the reference product, a head-to-head clinical study (Combe, B. et
al.) comparing its efficacy with the TNF-alpha inhibitor adalimumab confirmed
direct clinical equivalence between these therapies.
This approach has several critical
consequences:
Reduction
in the reimbursement of innovative medicines – if the reimbursement of a medicinal
product is set according to another reference group that includes
generics, it automatically decreases regardless of the original
therapeutic value.
Domino
effect on other groups – once reimbursement is lowered in one group, this decrease can
reflect in reimbursement revisions across other reference groups, leading
to a gradual overall reduction in reimbursements.
Unpredictability
for pharmaceutical manufacturers – companies bringing new medicinal
products to market lack certainty about how their reimbursement will be
determined, as it may be derived from different reference groups without
formal inclusion in them.
Long-Term Impacts This new approach has not only short-term
effects on the reimbursement of specific medicines but also long-term
consequences for the entire pharmaceutical sector:
Reduced
attractiveness of the Czech market – if innovative medicines are
systematically undervalued, pharmaceutical companies may be discouraged
from introducing new medicines to the Czech market.
Impact
on patients –
lower reimbursements may lead to reduced availability of innovative
therapies and fewer treatment options for both patients and physicians.
Disruption
of reimbursement policy transparency – linking reimbursements across different
reference groups may complicate predictability and planning in the field
of pharmaco-economics.
Open Question: Where is the Boundary Between
Efficiency and Innovation Regulation? How might the domino effect manifest in
non-referential indications in the future? This case represents a breakthrough
in setting more than one additional increased reimbursement, meaning the
barrier of "only one increased reimbursement" is eliminated. On the
other hand, this new trend may lead to an intricate network of interconnected
reference groups with generic-based reimbursements, discouraging marketing
authorization holders from including their products in such groups.
The pharmaceutical market in the Czech Republic is undergoing a gradual shift in decision-making practices, which may significantly impact pricing and reimbursement regulations as well as the...
On February 21, 2025, the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic published the following opinion on the procedure for assessing the financial impact on the health insurance system when determining or changing the amount and conditions of reimbursement for a medicinal product or food for special medical purposes:
"The Department of Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of
the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as
"the Ministry"), in view of the wording of the applicable Act No.
338/2024 Coll., amending Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on Public Health Insurance and
on Amendments and Supplements to Certain Related Acts, as amended, Act No.
592/1992 Coll., on Insurance Contributions for Public Health Insurance, as
amended, and Act No. 378/2007 Coll., on Medicinal Products and on Amendments to
Certain Related Acts (the Medicinal Products Act), as amended, which, with
effect from January 1, 2025, changes the principles in the area of monitoring
limits of deductible co-payments for partially reimbursed medicinal products
and foods for special medical purposes (the protective limit) and the
subsequent reimbursement of deductible co-payments exceeding the protective
limit under Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on Public Health Insurance and on Amendments
and Supplements to Certain Related Acts, as amended (hereinafter referred to as
"the Public Health Insurance Act"), hereby issues its opinion on the
procedure for assessing the financial impact on the health insurance system
when determining or changing the amount and conditions of reimbursement for medicinal
products or foods for special medical purposes.
The method of assessing the financial impact on the health
insurance system (hereinafter referred to as "budget impact") is
expressed in the third and fourth sentences of Section 15(8) of the Public
Health Insurance Act, which state that "The budget impact is determined
as the difference between the costs of treating a given disease associated with
the use of a medicinal product or food for special medical purposes that would
be reimbursed from health insurance funds, and the costs of treatment using
another medicinal product, food for special medical purposes, or treatment
method that is already reimbursed from health insurance funds. The budget
impact must be in accordance with the public interest pursuant to Section
17(2)."
If, under Section 15(9) of the Public Health Insurance Act,
the anticipated budget impact associated with determining reimbursement for a
medicinal product or food for special medical purposes shows an increase in
expenditures from the health insurance system, the budget impact assessment
must be conducted through a budget impact analysis submitted by the applicant,
which the State Institute for Drug Control assesses during the proceedings [see
Section 39b(2)(c) of the Public Health Insurance Act].
The requirements of the third and fourth sentences of
Section 15(8) of the Public Health Insurance Act for the applicant-submitted
budget impact analysis and the procedure of the State Institute for Drug
Control in its assessment are elaborated in the methodology SP-CAU-27
(hereinafter referred to as "the methodology") as of the date of this
opinion. For the purpose of quantifying the budget impact, the methodology
allows only the perspective of health insurance expenditures (for completeness,
it should be noted that this applies outside of proceedings conducted under
Section 39da of the Public Health Insurance Act).
The Ministry is aware from its own official activities that
the State Institute for Drug Control currently considers only direct costs
(both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical) demonstrably incurred from health
insurance in connection with the therapy of the given disease as relevant costs
in the budget impact assessment, whereby the State Institute for Drug Control
considers only the costs at the level of reimbursement from health insurance,
or costs corresponding to the maximum consumer price if this price is lower
than the reimbursement amount, as direct pharmaceutical costs for both the
evaluated intervention and the comparator.
However, as the Public Health Insurance Act stipulates
that the budget impact is determined as the difference in treatment costs for
the given disease (from the perspective of health insurance) associated with
the use of medicinal products, the Ministry considers it necessary to include
in the relevant direct costs for the evaluated intervention and the comparator
also the amounts of deductible co-payments reimbursed by health insurance funds
above the protective limit of the insured, which, in connection with the
amendment to the Public Health Insurance Act, will be a direct expenditure of
health insurance funds paid to pharmacy service providers related to the
treatment of the given disease.
For this reason, it is necessary that the applicant, within
the submitted application, consider the anticipated budget impact, taking into
account any deductible co-payments for the evaluated and comparator
intervention.
If, in the assessment of the anticipated budget impact under
Section 39b(2)(j) of the Public Health Insurance Act in proceedings on
determining or changing the amount and conditions of reimbursement for a
medicinal product, it becomes apparent that this anticipated reimbursement
impact on health insurance funds, taking into account the anticipated amount of
deductible co-payments (representing the cost of treating the given disease),
shows an increase in expenditures from the health insurance system, in such a
case, the applicant must submit a budget impact analysis that also considers
the amount of the anticipated deductible co-payment.
According to the Ministry, in order to fulfill the purpose
of the aforementioned legal provisions concerning the new protective limit
rules, it is necessary that, in the budget impact assessment by the applicant
and the budget impact evaluation by the State Institute for Drug Control, the
deductible co-payment amounts applied in practice are considered, rather than
the highest possible deductible co-payment amounts calculated according to the
second sentence of Section 16b(1) of the Public Health Insurance Act.
The Ministry further emphasizes that the deductible
co-payments for partially reimbursed medicinal products and foods for special
medical purposes, which count towards the insured person's protective limit,
are known to the State Institute for Drug Control from its own official
activities, as well as to health insurance funds, and marketing authorization
holders can also determine the actually applied amounts of deductible
co-payments from the publicly available data on the website of the State
Institute for Drug Control at https://prehledy.sukl.cz/prehled_leciv.html#/ or
calculate them from data on already reimbursed medicinal products (comparators)
published at regular intervals on https://opendata.sukl.cz/?q=katalog/lek-13
(note: link valid as of the date of this opinion).
For practical implementation, the Ministry believes that the
above-mentioned change in the procedure for budget impact assessment can be
realized as follows. The budget impact analysis will, in addition to the
currently expressed budget impact, also include a separately calculated budget
impact incorporating the costs of deductible co-payments for partially
reimbursed medicinal products and foods for special medical purposes that would
arise for health insurance funds when exceeding the annual protective limit.
However, presenting a separately calculated budget impact with applied
deductible co-payments will not be entirely necessary (or would be redundant)
in cases where no deductible co-payment arises in the determination or change
of the reimbursement amount and conditions for the evaluated intervention.
In conclusion, the Ministry states that this opinion does
not interfere with the current practice of assessing cost-effectiveness
analyses."
The original document is available on the website of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic.
The text of the opinion was translated using ChatGPT 4o.
The Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic has published an opinion on the procedure for assessing the financial impact on the health insurance system when determining or changing the amount and...
Starting january 1, 2025, Pharmeca a.s. will provide an overview of issued decisions by the State Institute for Drug Control (SÚKL) and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (MZ ČR) related to pricing and reimbursement on its website.
For marketing authorization holders, knowledge of SÚKL and MZ ČR decisions in the area of pricing and reimbursement is essential. The outcomes of individual proceedings shape decision-making practices that influence future decisions.
To address this need, Pharmeca a.s. now offers an interactive overview of decisions issued in the past five weeks.