Parliament recently adopted a new act to increase the transparency of managed entry agreements (MEAs) concluded between pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance. MEAs stipulate confidential compensation mechanisms for the government regarding the publicly listed price and reimbursement basis of the medicines concerned.
The COVID-19 outbreak has created an urgent need for certain goods, including medicines and medical devices. However, do public authorities (eg, hospitals) still need to follow the complete public procurement procedures to procure these urgently needed goods? In cases of extreme urgency, such as that presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, contracting authorities can use the negotiated procedure without publication to place tenders.
The minister of economic affairs recently adopted a ministerial decree which restricts the retail and wholesale distribution of certain types of personal protective equipment and medical devices used for treating COVID-19 patients. Further amendments were implemented by ministerial decrees on 27 March 2020 and 7 April 2020. This article provides a short description of the relevant trade restrictions followed by a legal analysis in light of fundamental principles of EU law.
The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the fact that an EU common policy in the healthcare sector is virtually non-existent, especially in respect of medicinal product pricing and reimbursement. This article illustrates the need for national pricing authorities to consider that their policies could have unintended consequences and cross-border effects. Otherwise, national measures risk backfiring, as seems to have happened with the Belgian authorities' most recent attempt at further reducing medicinal product prices.
The Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products recently adopted a consolidated version of its decision to take a series of urgent measures for certain listed medicines (and raw materials) to avoid medicine shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. The measures apply until the end of April 2020 but may be renewed on a monthly basis. This article discusses the measures and their legality under EU law in more detail.
The Data Protection Authority (DPA) has approved a draft act that would prohibit life and health insurers from processing data from policyholders' health trackers. Notably, data from health trackers and apps can still be used for any other insurance that does not qualify as life or health insurance. However, in its advice, the DPA appears to acknowledge that all data coming from health trackers and lifestyle-related apps is likely to be considered health data.
A new act amending various legal provisions concerning shortages of medicinal products was recently published in the Official Gazette. Arguably, the new legislation does not prevent pharmaceutical companies from applying quotas, provided that they do not affect the public service obligation of wholesaler-distributors (also known as 'full-line wholesalers'). In addition, the act arguably imposes no general obligation on pharmaceutical companies to supply retail pharmacies directly.
The Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products recently issued a circular letter reminding the different actors in the Belgian healthcare sector that incentives in the course of public procurement procedures should be considered carefully. Further, the circular letter underlined the risk of contravening the ban on receiving gifts, monetary advantages or benefits and public procurement rules.
A legislative package aimed at fighting falsified medicines will enter into force in the European Union in early 2019. This EU legal framework was transposed into Belgian law through the Medicines Act and the Royal Decree concerning Medicines for Human and Veterinary Use. As a result, pharmaceutical companies will be required to affix a so-called 'anti-tampering device' on all prescription medicinal products to allow verification of whether the packaging has been tampered with.
A pharmaceutical company requested a preliminary injunction against a generic manufacturer based on one of its invalidated supplementary protection certificates. An appeal court granted the injunction, but the generic manufacturer appealed to the Supreme Court. The court's decision is notable for its distinction between the authority and the force of res judicata, and the implications of this distinction for rights holders.
The government has implemented a strict regulatory framework for genetically modified organism field trials. But what happens when one of the players fails to respect the rules? Does it affect the valid work that has already been done by others? These questions recently arose before the Ghent Court of First Instance in the context of expedited civil proceedings initiated by Greenpeace against the Belgian state.
The Brussels Court of Appeal recently ruled that a parallel importer did not properly notify a pharmaceutical trademark holder when it provided a two-dimensional mock-up of the outer packaging, rather than an actual sample, of the repackaged pharmaceutical as it would be presented on sale. The decision provided much-needed clarity, as the first instance court had issued contradicting decisions on the matter.
The Brussels Commercial Court has dismissed Pfizer's misleading claims directed against an advertisement for a generic product marketed by Eurogenerics, as well as Eurogenerics's counterclaim regarding the marketing of Pfizer's own generic product. The court's relaxed views on doctors' awareness of the regulations on reimbursement and their implications will be of interest to pharmaceutical marketeers.