The OFT today launched its report into the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme.
The report argues that the scheme is inefficient. Instead of operating a value-based pricing scheme, where the amount the NHS pays is linked to the therapeutic value of the drugs for patients (the OFT’s proposed new model), the current system utilises a control of price controls (29.4 per cent return on capital and floor of 8.4 per cent return on capital for branded goods) and profit controls (companies are free to set initial prices for new active substances, but subsequent increases are restricted).
The IPKat, on taking a quick look through the report, is happy to see that the OFT has acknowledging that patented and generic products will need to be treated differently. However he’s not convinced that patent owners will see prices capped by value to patients as fully reflecting their R & D costs.
The report argues that the scheme is inefficient. Instead of operating a value-based pricing scheme, where the amount the NHS pays is linked to the therapeutic value of the drugs for patients (the OFT’s proposed new model), the current system utilises a control of price controls (29.4 per cent return on capital and floor of 8.4 per cent return on capital for branded goods) and profit controls (companies are free to set initial prices for new active substances, but subsequent increases are restricted).
The IPKat, on taking a quick look through the report, is happy to see that the OFT has acknowledging that patented and generic products will need to be treated differently. However he’s not convinced that patent owners will see prices capped by value to patients as fully reflecting their R & D costs.
NHS drugs pricing report
![NHS drugs pricing report]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html