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

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
Swifter merger clearance and shorter merger filings in Belgium

Short Reads - Companies can expect swifter merger clearance and simpler filing rules in Belgium. The Belgian Competition Authority has published a communication with additional rules concerning the simplified procedure for certain types of concentrations. As a result, a new category of concentrations will be eligible for a simplified merger filing, leading to swifter approval and lower costs. It will also allow the BCA to focus its resources on more problematic and complex files.

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: gun jumping is double trouble

Short Reads - Companies beware: the European Court of Justice has confirmed the Commission’s practice of imposing two separate fines for gun jumping; one for failing to notify a concentration prior to its implementation, and another for implementing the concentration before obtaining clearance. The ruling underlines, once again, the increased focus of competition authorities on procedural merger control breaches – good reason for companies to keep a watchful eye on their gun jumping obligations and to take note of the possibility of two separate gun jumping fines. 

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
Commission continues cross-border trade crusade

Short Reads - The European Commission is on a roll in its fight against territorial sales restrictions. Just one month after fining broadcast network company NBCUniversal for restricting cross-border sales, it has also imposed a fine on hotel group Meliá for discriminating between customers based on nationality or place of residence. Meanwhile, the Commission is urging national consumer protection authorities to tackle cross-border issues, after an EU-wide screening of nearly 500 e-shops showed that one fifth of the flagged websites did not respect the Geo-blocking Regulation. 

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring