1 / 32

PROCUREMENT & DISTRIBUTION INTEREST GROUP Autumn Symposium 2007

PROCUREMENT & DISTRIBUTION INTEREST GROUP Autumn Symposium 2007. http://www.pdig.org.uk/. Performance Management of Branded Medicines PDIG Award. Kirsteen Docherty, Procurement Services Manager, UCLH Trust. Medicines Procurement. Trust or regional consortia Therapeutic P.I. tendering

niveditha
Download Presentation

PROCUREMENT & DISTRIBUTION INTEREST GROUP Autumn Symposium 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PROCUREMENT & DISTRIBUTION INTEREST GROUPAutumn Symposium 2007 http://www.pdig.org.uk/

  2. Performance Management of Branded MedicinesPDIG Award Kirsteen Docherty, Procurement Services Manager, UCLH Trust

  3. Medicines Procurement • Trust or regional • consortia • Therapeutic • P.I. tendering • Economies in • physical practice • Trust or regional • consortia • P.I. tenders • Economies in • physical practice National SCEP Generic Branded Branded Free market Monopoly Oligopoly Potential for Purchase/Contracting Supplier Strategy

  4. Research Questionnaire Content (24 forms returned) • Consortia purchasing • Multiple consortia purchasing • Parallel Imports • Volume discounts • Benchmarking • Tender paperwork • Performance monitoring (inc savings and cost pressures) and barriers to this • Therapeutic switching • Horizon scanning • The future for branded medicines procurement

  5. Consortia purchasing

  6. Impact of size of purchasing organisation Single Hospital Trust Regional/ Division Consortium National/ Division Purchasing Power Size of Organisation Ease of Co-ordination

  7. Multiple consortium purchasing together % of Trusts interested in becoming involved in multiple consortium purchasing. Yes – 86% No – 14%

  8. Respondents perceptions on effectiveness of multiple consortia purchasing

  9. Parallel Importing % of Trusts who tender for parallel imports? Yes – 83% No – 17%

  10. Factors that may prevent the purchase of PI’s? • Continuity of supply 54% • Labelling/packaging 54% • Counterfeiting 42% • Reputation of supplier 8% • Sourcing 4% • Limited discounts available 4%

  11. Volume Discounts • Ability to take advantage of large volume discounts? Yes – 79% No – 21% • Approx 50% of those who can take advantage stated this was because of access to a regional store

  12. Benchmarking prices

  13. Reporting on procurement performance? 62% of respondents compile a yearly report on procurement performance. Information included in the report; • Savings achieved 100% • Tendering work undertaken 80% • Further savings opportunities 80% • Work plan for next year 53% • Other 13%

  14. Reporting on procurement performance? Who is interested in seeing the report? • Senior pharmacy managers 93% • Finance director 87% • CEO 33% • Trust procurement mgr 27% • Procurement hub 20% • Other 13%

  15. Savings • 83% of respondents measured contract savings • 34% were given a savings target per annum from the medicines budget • 31% had medicines savings removed from the medicines budget

  16. Price increases • 71% of respondents measured price increases • How often price increases are measured?

  17. Cost pressure analysis Definition: Monitoring the medicines budget using price changes and volume changes. 43% of respondents use cost pressure analysis (30% of these use this for all branded medicines)

  18. Who is cost pressure analysis work shared with? • Finance director 80% • Senior pharmacy mgr 70% • Trust procurement mgr 20% • Other 20% • CEO 10%

  19. Other performance monitoring tools • Compilation and review of high expenditure 96% branded products e.g. Top 100. • Value, number or % of high expenditure branded 71% products without a contract • The number/ % of branded lines tendered per annum 25% • The average % discount for branded lines as a whole 13% • The average % discount for branded lines per company 4% • The average % discount per therapeutic group 0%

  20. Suggested other performance measurements • Supplier performance monitoring • Price tracking in relation to patent expiry • Impact of entry of competitor products • Opportunities for therapeutic switching

  21. Barriers to measuring branded medicines contracting performance

  22. Therapeutic Switching • 83% of Trusts are currently involved in therapeutic switching • For 73% of those Trusts the pharmacy procurement team are involved

  23. Therapeutic switching, easy or difficult?

  24. Key problems with implementation of therapeutic switching • Reluctance to change 50% • Clinical concerns 42% • Insufficient resources 42% • Industry funding (linked to product) 13% • Other 13% • Lack of clinical data 8% • Other priorities 4% • Insufficient savings 4%

  25. Respondents views on future structures for branded medicines procurement • Involvement of NPSG & PMSG 88% • Collaboration between Trust procurement, 83% consortium and PaSA • Collaboration between Trusts in form of 67% consortium • Multiple consortia purchasing 67% • CPH involvement 21% • NHS Supply Chain involvement 17% • Trusts supply dept involvement 17%

  26. What are the current trends in branded pharmaceuticals management? • More collaboration between Trusts and Consortium e.g. LPP. Trust contracting likely to decrease further. • Increased use of branded medicine tendering • Companies increasingly offer volume based frameworks

  27. What are the current trends in branded pharmaceuticals management? • Introduction of payback schemes e.g. Velcade. • Increase in treatment of patients within their home environment • Increase in development of biotech drugs – decreased competition, limited tender/negotiation opps. • Encouragement of therapeutic switching across multi-consortia e.g. LPP.

  28. Why are we contracting for branded medicines? • Current PPRS profit cap model is not effective at controlling prices? • OFT proposal for value/ evidence based pricing by NICE. Takes branded medicine management work load from local and multi-consortia to national level. • Reference pricing in New Zealand & Australia and cross product strategic agreements in New Zealand. • Govt/PPRS and manufacturer price negotiations prior to product launch e.g. French model.

More Related