The European Parliament has voted for measures to speed up patient access to generic medicines.

The proposal to shorten the period for decisions on pricing and reimbursement of generic drugs from 180 days to 60 days was backed by 559 votes to 54.

Some member state governments are expected to resist the change, which could enable generic drug manufacturers to negotiate higher prices.

The deadline for new (branded) drugs would remain set at 180 days from regulatory approval, under rules that date back to 1989.

Bulgarian MEP Antonyia Parvanova, an architect of the new legislation, commented: “It is unacceptable that delays in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines can sometimes reach more than 700 days.”

The draft legislation would also require national health systems to publish an annual list of medicines available within each system and their prices, as well as the names and declarations of interest of the experts consulted.

While accepting that pricing and reimbursement are national responsibilities, the European Commission has stated the legislation will clarify these procedures and help to avoid unnecessary delays in access to generic drugs.

The proposed change may favour generic drug manufacturers in terms of pricing negotiations, as well as making the ‘patent cliff’ steeper for branded drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry’s reputation in the last twelve months has declined worldwide, a new survey has found.

Only a third of patient groups now believe that pharma has an ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ reputation, figures from PatientView’s independent 2012 annual review show. In 2011, 42% of respondents had the same opinion.

A global survey of some 600 international, national and regional patient groups showed that 66% of respondents felt the industry needed to do more to improve its corporate image and its relationship with patients.

Respondents were quizzed on their impression of 29 of the largest global pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche.

Up to half of responses claimed that pharma had a ‘poor’ record in 2012 for its pricing policies. Nearly the same amount (48%) also claimed that the industry had a ‘poor’ record for being transparent over the last twelve months.

There was also a marked change in opinions of the way pharma manages adverse news about its products – down 29% compared to the 2011 results; of whether it has ethical marketing practices – a fall of 23% on the 2011 data; and of its relationship with the media – down 19% on last year’s results.

But the survey was not all bad news for pharma. As part of the study, respondents were asked to provide feedback on six key indicators that influence corporate reputation: patient-centeredness; patient information; patient safety; useful products; transparency; and integrity. Lundbeck topped the charts after it received the highest ranking overall and moved up three places on 2011’s chart – see below.

Gilead Sciences, which jumped from 10^th in 2011 to 2^nd last year, and Eli Lilly, which improved from 18^th to 9^th place, also had reason to celebrate.

The Government needs to do more to support life sciences in the UK and create an environment where the industry can flourish, a new survey has found.

RSA’s The UK Life Sciences Leaders’ Survey 2011 revealed worries over the NHS reforms, medicine pricing and reimbursement, employment issues and the cost of research amongst its leaders.

Nick Stephens, CEO of RSA, says the Government “urgently needs to do more to ensure that education, regulation, access to medicines and the NHS research base align to support the industry’s continued contribution to the UK economy”.

The report is the second annual survey of industry bosses. Last year the general feeling was of optimism with leaders believing the recently elected coalition Government would improve the business environment.

But twelve months later the mood has changed with results finding leaders claim the UK is not competing effectively globally, creating opportunities for early phase/smaller companies or making the most of its unique selling points: the NHS and skills in innovation and discovery.

Leaders also raised concerns about the increasing cost of working in the UK, the implication of R&D as a result of the NHS reforms, the regulatory burden on operations and the process from development to market. They also advised that fiscal and tax incentives should be given to SMEs to help their growth and the UK compete globally.

Worries were also raised about the introduction of value-based pricing. However, in contrast, health technology assessments were broadly welcomed as a means of enhancing value and meeting therapeutic requirements, the report found.

During the tough economic environment, the survey found that leaders would focus on innovation, creating flexible organisations and processes, and refocusing research and development to weather the current storm.

In a perfect world, leaders revealed they would investing in R&D and make the healthcare sector, regulatory and commercial environment work closer together to achieve better outcomes for patients and the pharmaceutical industry.

Stephen Whitehead, CEO, ABPI, says the survey shows more support is needed for biopharmaceutical companies in the ever-changing NHS. “There is much that the Government has done to support the industry, particularly through the Growth Review and the Office for Life Sciences,” he said. “But we need to build on this as part of a continuing relationship with NHS and Government to explore how unnecessary bureaucracy can be eliminated from the healthcare system so that new treatments can reach patients as quickly as possible.”