[Reporter’s View] Secrecy no more in pricing negotiations

The importance of providing a clear explanation about an administrative decision is essential in the process of handling administrative affairs.

 

This becomes all the more important when an exception arises in the application of a regulation, which raises more questions than an introduction or abolition of a system.

 

But the National Health Insurance Service and pharmaceutical companies have never provided an explanation on a drug that extended their drug pricing negotiation period after passing the set deadlines.

 

This non-explanation of such events has persisted despite the increasing drug pricing negotiation extensions that are been made between the NHIS and companies to newly list or expand insurance benefits for select drugs.

 

From the patient’s perspective, the drug pricing negotiations have become a stage of endless wait, a stage without promise.

 

This is in part due to the fact that the negotiation expiry date, extension decision, and other matters discussed and set by the NHIS and the companies are all kept undisclosed under a confidentiality agreement.

 

In other words, there is no way for the third party to know when the 60-day negotiation period has started or ended.

 

This is why more and more patients and healthcare professionals are expressing feeling smothered by the increasing number of negotiation extensions.

 

The NHIS needs to seriously contemplate why the Drug Reimbursement and Evaluation Committee and Cancer Disease Deliberation Committee decided to disclose their deliberation results.

 

In the current “high-priced drug era,” there are plenty of very effective but expensive drugs being introduced to the market.

 

Therefore, it can be difficult for the government and the pharmaceutical company to reach an agreement within the set period of “50 days.” However still, the emphasis needs to be laid on the word, deadline.

 

Deadline is a kind of promise.

 

Also, the NHIS has described the negotiation deadline as a sort of "benefit" when announcing its plan to shorten the deadline for new domestic drugs.

 

In other words, the period is set for the final negotiation period to speed up listing and allow others to estimate the time to listing or rejection.

 

Also, the people need to know why the negotiation fell through so that they could criticize the faulty party and find a compromise.

 

Of course, both are to blame for the deadline extension.

 

Negotiation extensions prevail due to a lack of a mindset to bring results within the set period as well as the vague underlying sentiment that the drug will not be listed on the first try because it is an expensive and difficult drug to negotiate.

 

Such sentiment and mindset are what lead to the repetition of exceptional cases.

 

Also, the companies’ time-wasting acts due to delays in communication with their HQ and the administrative department’s complacency of delaying the imminent “negotiation breakdown” due to the fear of the flood of complaints filed by patients obscure the purpose of the system itself.

 

The HIRA’s review process, during which a drug is evaluated based on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, and the drug pricing negotiations, which will directly affect fiscal spending on the authorities’ part, would have to be a sensitive issue for both parties involved.

 

However, on how long the ‘confidentiality’ clause will be considered justifiable must be considered.

 

Times have changed.

 

The patients and patient families will not wait idly anymore.