The legal imperative for treating rare disorders

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Hyry, Hanna I ^a   Roos, Jonathan Cp ^a   Manuel, Jeremy ^b   Cox, Timothy M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b European Gaucher Alliance and Gauchers Association   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Disability; Human rights; Judicial review; Law; Orphan; Orphan drug; Rare disease; Tort

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG; PLANT MEDICINAL PRODUCT;

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISABILITY; EUROPEAN UNION; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW; MOTOR NEURON DISEASE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RARE DISEASE; REIMBURSEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; RARE DISEASES;

EID: 84883865414     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17501172     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-8-135     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Walsh B, The tier 4 phenomenon: shifting the high cost of drugs to consumers Washington DC: AARP 2009 http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/health/ tierfour.pdf
2. Testori Coggi P, Director General of the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers of the European Commission, Orphan Products and Rare Disease Therapies Brussels: 6th European Conference on Rare Diseases & Orphan Products 2012
3. European Commission, Competition DG: Pharmaceutical sector inquiry-final report http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/staff- working-paper-part1.pdf 20443440
4. The Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency, Assessment of treatment for Gaucher disease ends (in Swedish). 2012 http://www.tlv.se/ lakemedel/omprovning-av-lakemedel/avslutade-omprovningar/omprovning-av- lakemedel-for-gauchers-sjukdom-avslutad/
5. Dutch doctors call for EU evaluation of cost effectiveness of high cost orphan drugs. Sheldon T, BMJ 2012 345 5461 10.1136/bmj.e5461 22890124
6. Department of Health, A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines-Government response to consultation 2011 http://webarchive. nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/ Responsestoconsultations/DH-128226
7. Why is the press so nasty to NICE? Hawkes N, BMJ 2008 337 1906 10.1136/bmj.a1906
8. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Forward Look 19-20 May 2011-Hyper-expensive treatments-background paper http://www.nuffieldbioethics. org/sites/default/files/files/Hyper-expensive-treatments-background-paper.pdf 23941700
9. Uncertain miracle-a biotech drug extends a life, but at what price? Anand G, Wall Street Journal 2005
10. Greek crisis gets under skin of vulnerable. Jack A, Hope K, Financial Times 2012
11. European Commission, Rare diseases-what are they? http://ec.europa.eu/ health/rare-diseases/policy/index-en.htm 24019691
12. Council Recommendation of 8 June 2009 on an action in the field of rare diseases. (2009/C 151/02) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= OJ:C:2009:151:0007:0010:EN:PDF
13. Directive 2011/24/EU of The European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0045:0065: EN:PDF
14. Orphan drug pricing may warrant a competition law investigation. Roos J, Hyry H, Cox TM, BMJ 2010 341 6471 10.1136/bmj.c6471 21081598
15. NICE to assess high cost drugs for rare conditions 2012 http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/news/NICEToAssessHighCostDrugsForRareConditions. jsp
16. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
17. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 1 and Recital (j). http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
18. UK Department for Work and Pensions, UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disabled-people-and-legislation/un- convention-on-the-rights-of-disabled-people.php
19. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 25. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
20. United Nations, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=311
21. Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation {SEC(2008) 2180} {SEC(2008) 2181} /* COM/2008/0426 final-CNS 2008/0140 */ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=COM:2008:0426:FIN:EN:HTML
22. Explanatory Notes to Equality Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2010/15/notes/contents
23. Equality Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
24. Disability Discrimination Act-Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded-files/guidance-on-matters-to-be- taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of- disability.pdf 23929501
25. Equality Act 2010 s6(1). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/ contents
26. Department of Health, Securing best value for NHS patients 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment-data/file/ 156122/PCCR-consultation-Final.pdf.pdf
27. Eisai Ltd v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2007 EWHC 1941
28. Ac v West Primary Care Trust 2010 EWHC 1162
29. R (on the application of W) v Birmingham City Council 2011 EWHC 1147 (Admin)
30. R (on the application of Chavda and others) v Harrow London Borough Council 2007 EWHC 3064 (Admin):para 40 (concerning access by elderly disabled persons to community care)
31. Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. Gericke CA, Riesberg A, Busse R, J Med Ethics 2005 31 164 168 10.1136/jme.2003.007138 15738438 (Pubitemid 40378689)
32. R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School 2006 UKHL 15:para 68
33. R (on the application of De Almeida) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 2012 EWHC 1082
34. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223
35. Manchester City Council v Pinnock 2011 UKSC 6:paras 45 to 73
36. R (on the application of Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust and another 2006 EWCA Civ:392
37. Keenan v United Kingdom 2001 33 E.H.R.R. 913:para 11, applying İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII
38. R (on the application of (HA) (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2012 EWHC 979 (Admin). The Court accepted that inter alia absence of "appropriate medical treatment" to alleviate the detainee's mental illness breached Article 3 (paras 179 and 181)
39. R (on the application of D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2012 Unreported
40. R (on the application of Booker) v NHS Oldham 2010 EWHC 2593
41. R (on the application of Otley) v Barking and Dagenham NHS Primary Care Trust 2007 EWHC 1927, especially para 26 which sets out further reasons for granting judicial review
42. Regina v North West Lancashire Health Authority (Ex parte A, D and G) 2000 1 WLR 977
43. R (on the application of Oliver Leslie Burke) v the General Medical Council 2005 EWCA Civ 1003
44. Gladwell v Steggall 1839 5 Bing NC 733
45. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts 20 Sweet & Maxwell.
46. Roe v Ministry of Health 1954 2 QB 66
47. Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1951 2 KB 343
48. Wilsher v Essex AHA 1987 1 QB 730 (hospital had only four ventilators and none was made available to a baby who needed one: no negligence in the health authority merely because it did not have more at its disposal)
49. Nitecki v Poland ECHR. Application 65653/01
50. National and Official Satistics. HM Revenue & Customs, http://hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income-distribution/3-1table-feb2012.pdf
51. Osman v UK (Case 87/1997/871/1083) 1999. 1 FLR 193
52. Is it time to revisit orphan drug policies? McCabe C, Stafinski T, Menon D, BMJ 2010 341 4777 10.1136/bmj.c4777 20861098
53. Orphan drug reauthorization: hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session on H.R. 4160, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the Orphan Drug Act to revise the provisions of such acts relating to orphan drugs. United States Congress, Washington 1994 2
54. US National Organization for Rare Disorders, Social Security Disability Assistance http://www.rarediseases.org/advocacy/initiatives-updates/ssa- disability
55. U.S. Social Security Administration, Disability Planner: What We Mean By Disability http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dqualify4.htm
56. R v Cambridge Health Authority, Ex parte B 1995 1 WLR 898
57. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan 2000 2 WLR 622
58. Dunoyer M, GlaxoSmithKline, Value & Specificity of Rare Diseases Business Model Brussels: 6th European Conference on Rare Diseases & Orphan Products 2012 24020052
59. NHS Act 2006 s172.
60. National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 2000
61. NHS Constitution: appendix page 118
62. Co-payments in the NHS: an analysis of the normative arguments. Weale A, Clark S, Health Economics, Policy and Law 2010 5 225 246 10.1017/ S1744133109990211
63. D v United Kingdom 1997 24 EHRR 423
64. R (on the application of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust 2011 EWHC 2011:895 (Admin)