Search results

Taxes are used to subsidise the public use of pharmaceuticals in some countries. This paper seeks to quantify criteria considered important by the Australian public for allocating resources for pharmaceuticals.

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to two samples of adults in Australia. A forced choice design was used in a pilot study, but an opt‐out option was included in the main study to avoid forcing choice. Data were analysed using multinomial logit.

For the levels and units presented in the DCE, quality of life (QoL) after treatment was the most important attribute in both the pilot and main studies, followed by survival after treatment and the chance of success for a given pharmaceutical. Cost to the government was of little importance in the pilot study, but was of importance in the main study.

By understanding public preferences, marketers can tailor pharmaceutical offerings that appeal to the public and to relevant pharmaceutical funding bodies when making submissions, thus increasing the likelihood of receiving public funding support. Understanding public preferences allows public policy‐makers to direct resources towards those medical technologies which are likely to give the greatest overall societal benefit.

This study shows the simultaneous importance of survival, QoL, chance of success and cost to public preferences for pharmaceutical funding. Cost (tax) signals suggest the public are willing to limit the amount they expect the government to pay for effective pharmaceuticals.

We are in the midst of a broad societal change in which women’s sexual problems are becoming increasingly medicalized, characterized as treatable medical conditions and defined and understood as a largely physiologically based disease, called “female sexual dysfunction” (FSD). When a condition is medicalized, a medical framework is used to understand it, and medical interventions are used to treat it. As part of this process, then, over the last several years, researchers and pharmaceutical companies have turned attention to developing medical treatments for FSD. As this medicalization continues to unfold with potentially important impacts, it is crucial that we understand the forces working to shape it.

Current pharmaceutical global pricing strategies functionally exclude developing countries from the market for drugs to treat many diseases. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate some of the proposed patent reward models to determine their feasibility in the current environment.

A review of a variety of proposals including special financing or tax arrangements, public‐private partnerships, and government‐funded patent purchases are briefly reviewed. A more in‐depth examination of the recently proposed health impact fund (HIF) is undertaken.

In brief, the HIF requires developed countries to donate to a fund that finances the release of pharmaceutical patents. The pharmaceutical companies would be reimbursed over a ten‐year period from the government donation pool based on the medicine's health impact. The expected consequence of this policy would be affordable medicines for developed and developing countries. This examination highlights deficiencies in the current HIF strategy and offers a number of suggestions mostly focused on a more balanced sharing of the inherent risks in pharmaceutical product development to improve the strategies viability.

Although among the proposed strategies, the HIF offers the most promise, the suggested changes would result in a program viewed more favourably by the pharmaceutical industry and participating countries.

Although it is recognized that pricing challenges are limiting the availability to essential medications in developing countries, current strategies often ignore many of the market dynamics for pharmaceuticals. This critique, focused on the HIF strategy, is presented in an effort to improve the likely success of the most promising of these strategies.

This is a field-researched case about a nonprofit organization, the Accelerated Cure Project (ACP), dedicated to accelerating advances toward a cure for multiple sclerosis (MS). Inspired by the successful open source software development platform, ACP brings the strengths of that platform into the medical research and development environment. At the opening of the case, Robert McBurney, an Australian scientist with extensive experience in the biotech world, has been named CEO. McBurney and his team want to use ACP's bio-sample and data Repository to drive innovation in the search for the cure for MS by fostering collaborative research and development across research institutions, pharmaceutical and bio-tech companies. To encourage such collaboration ACP waives its rights to potentially lucrative Intellectual Property. This decision to foster collaboration at the expense of revenue sources appears problematic, since ACP does not have the staff or resources to undertake fundraising at the scale needed to fund current projects. ACP chooses to serve instead as an open access research accelerator making an impact on the field by functioning as an innovation driver rather than a profit maker. Is this an innovative recipe for success in finding a cure for MS or a recipe for financial disaster for ACP?

Interviews provided the primary source of data for this case. Four semi-structured interviews were conducted with the CEO of ACP, the Vice President of Scientific Operations, and a member of the organization's Board of Trustees, a collaborating university researcher, and the President of a bio-tech company working with ACP. Interview data was supplemented with additional information from ACP's web site, news reports, McBurney's comments at Suffolk University's Global Leadership in Innovation and Collaboration Award event, and follow-up conversations.

This case is intended for use in an undergraduate course examining strategic management issues midway through the term. The case discussion can center on issues relating to: first, the development of the business model; second, revenue resources and fundraising. Students are expected to spend two to three hours of outside preparation reviewing concepts of change leadership and the collaborative enterprise business model. They should read the case materials and brainstorm options for improved change leadership. The case can be taught in one two-hour class period.

The purpose of this case is to introduce students to the strategic management and funding challenges faced by an organization that is using a non-traditional business model in an increasingly complex environment. As a result of discussing this case, students should be able to: first, examine strategic organizational strengths, analyze opportunities created by business, market and environmental factors, and strategize to minimize weaknesses and to address threats identify an organization's strategic focus; recognize and recommend options at crucial decision making junctures in a business situation; second, assess an organization's revenue model; analyze how this model can be improved; third, analyze the functionality and sustainability of an organization's business model.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the public sector entity within New Zealand's public health system, the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), continues to operate unfettered, with minimal government interference, in the face of ongoing public challenges.

The literature focuses on the philosophical paradigms of Willcocks and Mitchell et al. Willcocks explores multiple layers of organisational effectiveness, and Mitchell et al. introduce the notion of saliency. The concepts are then explored with respect to PHARMAC, with information regarding PHARMAC gathered from both publicly available documents and semi‐structured interviews. The application of the paradigms to the organisation is described.

PHARMAC's ongoing success and operations are due to a combination of factors. A lack of conflict between the organisation and theoretical constructs plus factors unique to the New Zealand situation provide a multi‐faceted explanation. There is danger in complacency, however; the current set of compatible factors may not be sustainable.

A more informed debate should enable the development of better performance and effectiveness measures. This may reduce the inherent tensions between administrators and clinicians in the public health sector of New Zealand, and potentially elsewhere.

The author is unaware of any other conceptual piece that draws together these paradigms at multiple levels in public sector organisations, especially within New Zealand.

In this study, the authors aimed to explore consumer perspectives on accelerated access to medicines. The authors were particularly interested in how they balance competing considerations of safety, efficacy, equity and access; whether and how their views change when there are different levels of uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of new medicines; and the procedures that they think should be used to make decisions about accelerated access to new medicines.

This was an exploratory qualitative study. Thirteen semi-structured interviews with patient advocates and two focus groups with patients were conducted and analysed thematically. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through inductive thematic analysis.

Participants outlined a range of justifications for accelerated access, including addressing unmet medical needs and encouraging further research and development. However, they were also cognisant of the potential risks and viewed ongoing data collection, disinvestment and market withdrawal as ways to address these. They also emphasised the importance of transparent decisions being made by people with relevant expertise, based on a thorough consideration of scientific evidence and stakeholder perspectives.

This is the first study to comprehensively explore Australian consumers' views of accelerated access to medicines. The results suggest that consumers want timely access to new medicines, but not at the expense of safety, efficacy, equity and sustainability. While accelerated access programs are likely to be welcomed by consumers, they must be fully informed of their conditions and limitations, and robust post-market data surveillance must be implemented and enforced to protect the interests of both individual patients and the broader community.

The purpose of this paper is to examine consumer attitudes toward direct‐to‐consumer (DTC) advertising and whether consumer attitudes regarding these types of advertisements differ based on income.

A sample of 168 consumers completed the survey on‐site at a pharmacy while waiting for their prescription(s) to be filled.

The findings indicated that low‐income consumers were more likely than higher income customers to: report being persuaded by DTC advertising to ask for an advertised drug; go to the doctor based on symptoms described in DTC advertising; and to prefer branded medication over generic alternatives.

The results provide useful information to policy makers and drug companies. The finding that these advertisements appear to impact lower income consumers to a greater extent than their higher‐income counterparts has both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, these ads appear to influence unhealthy, low‐income consumers to seek medical treatment. The negative implication concerns the effectiveness of DTC advertising in persuading low‐income consumer to prefer more expensive, branded drugs over generic alternatives.

Limited research has been done on the relationship between consumer perceptions of DTC advertising and differences in consumer groups based on income.

This chapter examines the role of pharmaceutical patents in the on-going support of pharmaceutical innovation. The social value of pharmaceutical innovation and the importance of its sustained growth are explained. The government buy-outs of patents to reduce drug prices for all American consumers while preserving vital drug innovation are proposed.

The paper aims to identify the requisite attributes and organisation to be displayed by a research university in order to engage successfully in collaborative research with industry partners.

The conceptual framework contrasts the traditional public funding model against the requirements of the “triple helix” model of government‐university‐industry research funding. The framework supports the exploration of a case study of a long‐standing and successful joint research partnership, the Dundee‐Kinases Consortium, which links a world‐class life sciences research centre and a group of global pharmaceutical companies.

The case study provides a starting point, and additional case examinations will confirm the role of resource competences and organisational capabilities in facilitating performance by way of knowledge generation and transfer between partners.

The design and leadership of the consortium achieves vital performance outcomes, namely: accelerating the production of new knowledge about cell signalling processes relating to serious diseases; and faster transfer of new knowledge into drug development processes of pharmaceutical companies. The development of key enabling capabilities by the university, allied with routines for academic‐industry researcher interface, are essential elements of the partnering design.

The paper demonstrates that university‐industry partnerships build on government‐university funding, that university‐industry relationships foster new university capabilities, and moreover, that academic publication is not displaced by the requirements of industry partners.

There is much evidence of bias in research on the effectiveness and efficacy of drugs as a result of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. The purpose of this paper is to present the views of those involved in a major evidence-based policy initiative from Canada and examine the adequacy of existing academic conflict of interest (COI) rules.

Data came from the Alzheimer’s Drug Therapy Initiative in British Columbia, a coverage with evidence development (CED) initiative, where a form of action research collected insights from the authors’ experiences, combined with qualitative interviews with members of the research team.

The majority of researchers perceive the influence of pharmaceutical manufacturers as problematic. Even when the strictest of COI rules are followed, extending well beyond disclosure, the reach of industry is so great that existing COI rules lag far behind their expanding influence.

The authors support others who call for the funding of independent research, enforcement of existing disclosure rules, and unfettered publication rights. In addition, the authors urge the education of all research team members, including clinicians, on the evidence indicating the variety of forms through which industry influence is exerted. The authors believe that this awareness-raising can help toward minimizing that influence in the analyses that are conducted.

Consideration of pharmaceutical influence on CED research is important. There may be an untrue assumption that CED is functioning at arms-length from the drug companies.