对澳大利亚获取价格更低但未经批准的药品和生物制剂的法律框架的分析。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1007/s11673-024-10392-6
N Ghinea
{"title":"对澳大利亚获取价格更低但未经批准的药品和生物制剂的法律框架的分析。","authors":"N Ghinea","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10392-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Approved medicines are not always sufficient to address the needs of patients so several legal pathways exist to enable access to unapproved medicines for treatment purposes. This article is the first to provide an in-depth analysis of this regulatory framework that governs access to unapproved medicines in Australia with a specific focus on affordability-motivated access.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Legislation, regulations, and guidelines were critically analysed to identify the de jure basis for importation and supply of unapproved medicines in Australia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most pathways for accessing unapproved medicines do not permit importation or supply for non-clinical justifications such as affordability. This is problematic as it fails to recognize that a medicine being unavailable is equivalent to a medicine being unaffordable for a patient. Better alignment can be achieved by permitting importation and supply of unapproved medicines if justified by good medical practice, which includes considerations of equity and access. It is also shown that the provisions of the Special Access Scheme Category A could be interpreted broadly to expand its use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As medicines become more expensive and cost-barriers to treatment are more prevalent, ignoring affordability as a valid criterion for importing medicines is a significant oversight of current regulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Analysis of Australia's Legal Framework for Access to More Affordable but Unapproved Medicines and Biologics.\",\"authors\":\"N Ghinea\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-024-10392-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Approved medicines are not always sufficient to address the needs of patients so several legal pathways exist to enable access to unapproved medicines for treatment purposes. This article is the first to provide an in-depth analysis of this regulatory framework that governs access to unapproved medicines in Australia with a specific focus on affordability-motivated access.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Legislation, regulations, and guidelines were critically analysed to identify the de jure basis for importation and supply of unapproved medicines in Australia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most pathways for accessing unapproved medicines do not permit importation or supply for non-clinical justifications such as affordability. This is problematic as it fails to recognize that a medicine being unavailable is equivalent to a medicine being unaffordable for a patient. Better alignment can be achieved by permitting importation and supply of unapproved medicines if justified by good medical practice, which includes considerations of equity and access. It is also shown that the provisions of the Special Access Scheme Category A could be interpreted broadly to expand its use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As medicines become more expensive and cost-barriers to treatment are more prevalent, ignoring affordability as a valid criterion for importing medicines is a significant oversight of current regulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10392-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10392-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:已获批准的药品并不总能满足患者的需求,因此有几种法律途径可以使患者获得未经批准的药品用于治疗。本文首次对澳大利亚未获批准药品的使用监管框架进行了深入分析,并特别关注了以经济承受能力为动机的使用问题:方法:对法律、法规和指南进行了批判性分析,以确定澳大利亚进口和供应未经批准药品的法律依据:结果:大多数获取未经批准的药品的途径都不允许进口或供应非临床理由的药品,如负担能力。这种做法是有问题的,因为它没有认识到,无法获得药品等同于患者负担不起药品。可以通过允许进口和供应未经批准的药品来实现更好的协调,前提是良好的医疗实践,包括公平和可及性方面的考虑。本文还表明,可以对《特别准入计划》A 类的规定进行广义解释,以扩大其使用范围:结论:随着药品越来越昂贵,治疗的成本障碍也越来越普遍,忽视可负担性这一进口药品的 有效标准是现行法规的一个重大疏忽。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An Analysis of Australia's Legal Framework for Access to More Affordable but Unapproved Medicines and Biologics.

Objective: Approved medicines are not always sufficient to address the needs of patients so several legal pathways exist to enable access to unapproved medicines for treatment purposes. This article is the first to provide an in-depth analysis of this regulatory framework that governs access to unapproved medicines in Australia with a specific focus on affordability-motivated access.

Methods: Legislation, regulations, and guidelines were critically analysed to identify the de jure basis for importation and supply of unapproved medicines in Australia.

Results: Most pathways for accessing unapproved medicines do not permit importation or supply for non-clinical justifications such as affordability. This is problematic as it fails to recognize that a medicine being unavailable is equivalent to a medicine being unaffordable for a patient. Better alignment can be achieved by permitting importation and supply of unapproved medicines if justified by good medical practice, which includes considerations of equity and access. It is also shown that the provisions of the Special Access Scheme Category A could be interpreted broadly to expand its use.

Conclusions: As medicines become more expensive and cost-barriers to treatment are more prevalent, ignoring affordability as a valid criterion for importing medicines is a significant oversight of current regulation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
期刊最新文献
Lead Essay-Islamic Bioethics: A Vast, Fecund and Rapidly Evolving Field of Scholarship. An Analysis of Australia's Legal Framework for Access to More Affordable but Unapproved Medicines and Biologics. Reflections from the Editors-in-Chief. The Role of Ethics Committees in Charity Care Allocation. Meaningful and Successful Ethical Enactments: A Proposal from Deliberative Wisdom Theory.
×
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