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

05.12.2019 NL law
Big tech firms entering banking: be careful what you wish for

Short Reads - Big tech firms, whether entering or already active on payments markets, are under scrutiny. PSD2 has opened up the payments markets to non-bank companies, but this comes with both risks and opportunities. EU regulators are examining anticompetitive risks, for example the possibility of leveraging a strong position in one market into another market. Competition, innovation, privacy and security for financial transactions will all be hot topics as scrutiny increases on providers of payment services.

Read more

05.12.2019 NL law
Court of Appeal applies competition notion of undertaking in civil damages claim

Short Reads - The Court of Appeal of Arnhem – Leeuwarden recently applied the competition law notion of an 'undertaking' in a civil damages suit between TenneT and an entity belonging to the Alstom group of companies. The Court of Appeal ruled that Cogelex formed a single undertaking with its 48% shareholder Alstom. Cogelex could therefore be held liable under civil law for the competition law infringement of its 48% parent company. The Court of Appeal based its decision on a broad application of the ECJ’s reasoning in its Skanska judgment of 14 March 2019.

Read more

05.12.2019 NL law
Walking a thin line: cooperation and collusion

Short Reads - Buying groups are under attack from competition authorities across Europe. Joint buying arrangements are aimed at strengthening participating companies' bargaining power towards their trading partners, usually resulting in lower prices or better quality for consumers. However, these buying arrangements must stay on the right side of the line between legitimate cooperation and anticompetitive collusion. Competition concerns may arise if the participating companies have a significant degree of market power or coordinate their conduct.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring