National pharmaceutical policies: comparing approaches
Several countries in Europe have begun to put in place national pharmaceutical policies as they vie for a dominant position in this economically significant industry. A new report looks into the similarities and differences between approaches in the UK, France and Germany – a welcome lesson for other countries.
The governments of the UK, France, and Germany all share aspirations regarding their pharmaceutical sectors and recognize the role they play in overall economic prosperity.
To capitalize on growth potential for their pharmaceutical sectors, the three countries must address issues such as attracting domestic research and development, access to innovation and investment, security of supply, and global competitiveness.
Having a national strategy is something they all view as key to overcoming these challenges and to gaining, maintaining, or restoring a leadership position in the sector.
To this end, all countries have developed a national strategy and are in the process of implementation.
To fully understand the differences and similarities in approach, Confluence Health Consulting developed a report, which we hope will help other countries contemplating a similar move. The findings are summarized below, and the report is available to download below.
A summary of approaches
The UK Government's Life Sciences Vision is a 10-year plan to make the country the global leader in life sciences. The plan was developed by a joint committee representing the government, the National Health Service, and the pharmaceutical industry.
Implementation has been a particular focus, due to failure of past strategies. It includes a high-level strategy and implementation processes such as detailed KPIs, metrics, an inter-ministerial Office of Life Science to coordinate decision-making, and a multistakeholder Life Sciences Implementation Board.
Despite political turmoil in 2022, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s administration endorsed the plan with funding and legislative reforms in 2023.
Meanwhile, France has multiple initiatives that impact pharmaceutical policy rather than a single unifying strategy. The closest France has to an overall measure is the Health Innovation 2023 plan, which is part of President Macron’s political goal to make France a healthcare innovation leader.
The plan has a budget allocated across all five components of their biopharmaceutical innovation ecosystem. Rather than a single ‘control tower’, there are several layers of oversight and governance. Implementation processes include a multistakeholder ‘follow-on’ committee to measure implementation and impact, and a Health Innovation Agency to coordinate across ministries with respect to the innovative medicines component of the plan.
More recently. the German government adopted a pharmaceutical strategy intended to restore the attractiveness of Germany as a pharmaceutical location and to ensure a reliable supply of medicines.
The strategy was developed within the government, between the Chancellery and the ministries of health and economy, following dialogue with industry and other key stakeholders. Implementation is focused on improving ‘framework conditions’, primarily through legislation at the national and EU levels, some of which is already well developed.
In addition, the strategy discusses implementing changes to the pricing system and introducing targeted funding measures related to translational research, start-ups and investment.
Similarities and differences
These nations have significant differences in their approaches, with the degree of government intervention being higher in the UK and French strategies than in the more legislative-focused German approach.
Also, the impact of non-governmental stakeholders on the final strategy and implementation is higher in the UK and France than in Germany. Implementation oversight and inter-ministerial coordination are more focused within the national strategy in the UK, while in France and Germany, elements of oversight or coordination sit outside of the plan.
Despite the differences, all three nations still share common features in their approach. Notable similarities are:
Development of a national strategy was triggered at the political level.
The first step is to develop a high-level ‘vision’ report, followed by more detailed implementation plans and processes.
There is considerable engagement with the pharmaceutical industry to inform the national strategy.
Inter-ministerial coordination, clear objectives and metrics are all viewed as critical success factors.
If you’d like to read more, download the full report which examines in more detail the development, governance and implementation of each national strategy, as well as any other areas which have a significant impact on pharmaceutical policy.
For more information, please contact Franz Pichler on fpichler@confluencehealthconsulting.com
