Health: Pharmaceutical Price Regulation

House of Lords written question – answered on 20th May 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Earl Howe Earl Howe Shadow Minister, Health

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the conclusions of the 2005 consultation on the "reimbursement of 'standard' branded generic medicines" have been taken into consideration during the current negotiations to agree a new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme; and

When they expect to publish the details of how a new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme will operate; and

Whether current negotiations on a new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme will take account of savings made to the National Health Service by pharmaceutical companies over and above those required in the 2005 pharmaceutical price regulation scheme; and

How they intend to fulfil the commitment made in the interim response to the Office of Fair Trading report on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme of "delivering value for money" from a new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.

Photo of Lord Darzi of Denham Lord Darzi of Denham Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health)

Confidential negotiations on a successor to the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) are currently taking place between the Government and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. The Government will publish details of any new voluntary scheme only after agreement has been reached.

In renegotiating the scheme, the Government are taking into account the following principles, which were set out in the interim government response to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) market study on PPRS:

delivering value for money;encouraging and rewarding innovation;assisting the uptake of new medicines; andproviding stability, sustainability and predictability.

The responses to the 2005 consultation are being given careful consideration during the current negotiations, as are other issues relevant to the negotiations.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.