Excessive Pricing in Pharmaceuticals under Article 102 TFEU

IF 1.8 Q1 LAW European Journal of Risk Regulation Pub Date : 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1017/err.2023.49
Jacquelyn D. Veraldi
{"title":"Excessive Pricing in Pharmaceuticals under Article 102 TFEU","authors":"Jacquelyn D. Veraldi","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n High pharmaceutical pricing practices in Europe have been increasingly on the radar of the European Union, academia and civil society as a risk to Member State health budgets. It is therefore hardly surprising that, in recent years, competition authorities have resuscitated the excessive pricing prohibition contained in Article 102(a) TFEU. Focusing on this phenomenon, this piece highlights the diverse ways in which the United Brands test has been applied in pharmaceuticals by conducting a comparative study of the decisional practice of national competition authorities. Several observations and arguments are then derived therefrom, demonstrating that, while difficult (most notably in respect to patent-protected products), competition authorities and courts have established sophisticated ways of determining whether a pharmaceutical price is excessive in the sense of Article 102(a) TFEU. These findings should encourage hesitant competition authorities and private plaintiffs to at least carry out preliminary investigations when they suspect excessive pricing in pharmaceuticals is taking place.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High pharmaceutical pricing practices in Europe have been increasingly on the radar of the European Union, academia and civil society as a risk to Member State health budgets. It is therefore hardly surprising that, in recent years, competition authorities have resuscitated the excessive pricing prohibition contained in Article 102(a) TFEU. Focusing on this phenomenon, this piece highlights the diverse ways in which the United Brands test has been applied in pharmaceuticals by conducting a comparative study of the decisional practice of national competition authorities. Several observations and arguments are then derived therefrom, demonstrating that, while difficult (most notably in respect to patent-protected products), competition authorities and courts have established sophisticated ways of determining whether a pharmaceutical price is excessive in the sense of Article 102(a) TFEU. These findings should encourage hesitant competition authorities and private plaintiffs to at least carry out preliminary investigations when they suspect excessive pricing in pharmaceuticals is taking place.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《药品价格管理办法》第一百零二条规定的药品价格过高
欧洲的高药价做法日益受到欧洲联盟、学术界和民间社会的关注,认为这是对会员国卫生预算的一种风险。因此,近年来,竞争主管部门重新启用了TFEU第102(a)条所载的过度定价禁令,这并不奇怪。关注这一现象,这篇文章通过对国家竞争管理机构的决策实践进行比较研究,强调了联合品牌测试在制药行业应用的不同方式。然后得出一些观察结果和论点,表明尽管困难(尤其是在专利保护产品方面),竞争主管部门和法院已经建立了复杂的方法来确定第102(a)条TFEU意义上的药品价格是否过高。这些发现应该鼓励犹豫不决的竞争监管机构和私人原告,在怀疑药品定价过高时,至少进行初步调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: European Journal of Risk Regulation is an interdisciplinary forum bringing together legal practitioners, academics, risk analysts and policymakers in a dialogue on how risks to individuals’ health, safety and the environment are regulated across policy domains globally. The journal’s wide scope encourages exploration of public health, safety and environmental aspects of pharmaceuticals, food and other consumer products alongside a wider interpretation of risk, which includes financial regulation, technology-related risks, natural disasters and terrorism.
期刊最新文献
Democratising Food Safety: Why We Need to Look Beyond Government Regulation and Provide a Citizen Right of Action Mind the Gap: Assessing Member States’ Implementation of Farm to Farm-to-Fork Targets within the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy Rethinking Consumer Empowerment: New Directions for Sustainable Food Law in an Era of EU Discontent What EU Conditionality Says about the Rule of Law The Development Risks Defence in the Digital Age
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1