A paper in Health value By Gruger, Martin and Sulivan (2025) offer some lessons.
With extensive digitization of drug companies (price list), IRP led the faster convergence in the list of list across Europe. Although prices often spread ± 50% from the average price for drugs launched in the European Union in 1997, it compressed up to ± 20% for drugs launched in 2003 and stopped within this limit. The mechanics of the price reference and its effects have been largely analyzed.[Kanavos et al. 2020] Where countries implemented IRP, they gained short -term price reduction and budget relief. The pharmaceutical industry reacted with the introduction of the “list value corridors” for prices received in high -income countries, especially in Germany and France. Although it narrowed the spread of the prices of the list, there is no evidence that the IRP reduced the price level in the entire Europe. In small countries, there is less profit in dialogue, and prices are often ineffective for less rich countries …
However, it was expected that IRP would reduce drug prices during the European Union, resulting in a bilateral that could tolerate and who could not afford drugs. To overcome this, confidential net value agreements have become widespread.
In addition, international reference pricing has reduced access. EFPIA reports that when new drugs are started, only 29% are available and are reimbursed in all European countries; There is a limited availability of 17% due to a variety of restrictions or requirements to limit access to specific patient subgroups.
The paper then continues to describe the international reference pricing, which can be implemented under the most preferred nation (MFN) policy in the US. They claim that MFN can actually make higher results than low -drug prices in the US. To know why the author thinks this, you can read the full article Here,
