Neodyum Miknatis
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
canli poker siteleri meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

Pharmaceutical companies beware: excessive pricing enforcement is thriving

Pharmaceutical companies beware: excessive pricing enforcement is thr

Pharmaceutical companies beware: excessive pricing enforcement is thriving

06.12.2018 NL law

On 28 November 2018, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) held a discussion on excessive pricing by pharmaceutical companies, which is a hot topic in enforcement practice throughout Europe.

Over the last few years, excessive pricing in the pharmaceutical industry has attracted the attention of the European Commission and national regulators. So far, it has led to the adoption of infringement decisions in Italy, UK and Denmark and more enforcement action seems on its way. In a recent paper, the Commission underlined that innovation and risk-taking do not preclude the application of the competition rules to unfair prices. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) found that it is possible to strike a balance between innovation and cost control when assessing excessive pharmaceutical prices under the competition rules by adding a touch of fairness into the equation. Clearly, given these developments, there is good reason for pharmaceutical companies to watch this space.

Although the OECD Secretariat and member states have submitted papers, this article focuses on the contributions of the ACM and the Commission.

European Commission

According to the Commission, the pharmaceutical sector is more susceptible to unfair pricing practices than other sectors because of the high inelasticity of demand, especially when patients are dependent on a drug. This is the result of the following factors: (i) patients do not pay for a number of medicines. At the same time prescribers neither consume nor pay them and national health services and insurance companies pay for medicines but have limited influence on prescription or consumption patterns, and (ii) health service providers may have limited bargaining power to negotiate prices with manufacturers.

The Commission acknowledged that the particularities of the pharmaceutical industry, such as product life cycles and the role of regulation by health authorities, need to be taken into account when assessing pricing practices by pharmaceutical companies. These features, however, do not rule out competition rules being applied to unfair pricing practices.

The Commission noted that competition authorities may face difficulties in determining whether prices are excessive, the correct price to adopt as a remedy to competition concerns and how an implemented remedy should be monitored. When considering the methods used to assess whether prices are excessive, the Commission alluded to a test adopted by the European Court of Justice in its seminal judgment in United Brands. This test considers two alternative criteria in determining excessive pricing practices: a price may be (i) unfair in itself or (ii) unfair compared to competing products. However, applying this test is not necessarily straightforward. Recently, for example, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal found that the Competition and Markets Authority had misapplied the United Brands test in finding that Pfizer and Flynn Pharma unfairly priced their epilepsy drug [see our July 2018 Newsletter]. The Commission acknowledged that there are other tests besides the one adopted in United Brands to establish whether a price is abusive.

ACM

Similarly, in its submission to the OECD, the ACM again stressed that the existence of patent protection does not bar enforcement of the competition law prohibition on excessive pricing. This year the ACM has shown an increased interest in pricing in the pharmaceutical industry [see our March 2018 Newsletter]. More recently, the former chairman of the ACM together with two colleagues published a paper concerning the application of the competition rules to the pharmaceutical industry [see our April 2018 Newsletter]. In its OECD submission the ACM added a new element which was not yet fully developed in its previous paper, i.e. fairness.

In the context of fairness, the ACM argued that a stricter cost-based test should be applied to drugs that involve limited innovation in comparison with drugs that require significant investment in research and development. The ACM considered that the most important factors to take into account for the cost-based test are (i) the probability that a drug will be authorized and successful in the market and (ii) capital costs.

The ACM's proposed framework raises many questions. It is likely that this approach will be tested in future cases. For example, the ACM recently received a complaint against Leadiant Biosciences for allegedly overpricing an orphan drug used for the treatment of a rare genetic disease. The ACM has also launched a sector inquiry into high prices of TNF inhibitors, a type of drug mainly used to treat rheumatisms.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

 

Team

Related news

07.01.2021 NL law
(Geo)blockbuster: Canal+ ruling annuls commitment decision

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies seeking to settle in antitrust proceedings: commercially-affected third party complainants are not to be ignored. The Canal+ judgment marks the first time a commitment decision has been successfully challenged since the adoption of Regulation 1/2003. The European Court of Justice annulled the commitment decision on the ground that the Commission failed to take into account the rights of contractual parties affected by the commitments.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Commission evaluates Antitrust Damages Directive: to be continued

Short Reads - On 14 December 2020, the Commission published a report on the implementation of the Antitrust Damages Directive (the Directive). The Commission observes a significant increase in antitrust damages actions since the adoption of the Directive. However, there is insufficient experience with the new Directive to properly evaluate its application. Instead, the Commission provides a concise overview of the implementation of some key aspects of the Directive.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Amsterdam District Court puts a halt to unlimited forum shopping

Short Reads - On 25 November 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the Court) declined jurisdiction over all non-Dutch defendants (the foreign defendants) in proceedings for compensation of damage based partly on an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The proceedings were initiated by four public utility companies from the Gulf States (claimants) against both Dutch and foreign defendants.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
ACM study calls for regulation of Big Techs on payment market

Short Reads - The ACM’s market study, published on 1 December 2020, provides an overview of recent and upcoming developments concerning the role of Big Tech companies in both online and offline payment markets in the Netherlands. Although Big Tech companies currently have a relatively limited presence in these markets, the ACM expects significant expansion in the near future given these companies’ ability to leverage existing market power on other (platform) markets.

Read more

07.01.2021 NL law
Do the math: ACM publishes strategy on monitoring use algorithms

Short Reads - The ACM worries that the use of algorithms may lead to the creation of cartels, or nudge consumers towards a purchasing decision that is not in their best interest. Therefore, on 10 December 2020, it published a new policy document (in Dutch) setting out what businesses can expect when the ACM checks their algorithms. On the same day, the ACM also launched a trial with online music library Muziekweb to improve the ACM’s knowledge about the categories of data that are likely to be relevant in such investigations. All signs indicate the ACM’s intention to become more active in this area.

Read more