'Drug pricing reform is overdue in Korea'

‘Korea’s drug pricing system reform can no longer be delayed'

KRPIA 25th Anniversary Forum…Experts call for recognition of innovative drug value and improvement of reimbursement system

Enhancing patient access in Korea requires joint efforts from both government and industry… A task for both the government and the pharmaceutical industry

KRPIA held a commemorative meeting marking its 25th anniversary on the 24th at Some Chavit in Banpo, Seoul.

 

During the panel discussion held that day, experts raised the opinion that the industry and government must work together to improve patient-centered access to new drugs

Concerns persist that domestic patients still face slow progress in accessing global new drugs.

 

Although the government has introduced system reforms such as expansion of the risk-sharing scheme and pilot projects linking regulatory approval and reimbursement evaluation, experts argue that the current incentive system for innovative drugs is still insufficient, hindering both industry growth and patient treatment opportunities.

 

On the 24th, the Korean Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry Association (KRPIA) held a roundtable to mark its 25th anniversary at Some Chavit in Banpo, Seoul.

 

During the panel discussion, domestic and international pharmaceutical experts emphasized the need to improve patient-focused access to innovative drugs, pricing systems, and value recognition structures.

 

Dong-ho Yeo from LG Chem, who has experience in both multinational and Korean pharmaceutical companies, stressed the importance of properly recognizing the value of innovative new drugs.

 

Yeo said, “Although Korean companies don’t yet have many achievements that can truly be called innovation, they are continuing development.

 

How the global innovative new drugs are evaluated will serve as an important signal for Korean companies as well.” “For Korean companies to move from being fast followers to first movers, innovative drugs must be appropriately valued.

 

It would be difficult for a domestic drug to prove competitiveness in overseas markets if its innovativeness is not even recognized in its home country.” Panelists noted that despite systems being in place, it still takes a long time before actual patients gain treatment opportunities.

 

They added that price negotiations and the financial savings logic often delay companies’ local launch strategies.

 

Jae-min Cho, Senior Director at Eli Lilly Korea, said: “It’s encouraging that the government has designated biotechnology as a strategic national industry.

 

However, the conservative value assessment practices of innovation hinder access for patients.” Cho pointed to ▲ Conservative evaluations that focus on price cuts rather than value recognition; ▲ Short evaluation periods (5–10 years) that fail to reflect long-term drug value; and ▲ even groundbreaking drugs developed after decades are often compared against the cost of outdated, low-priced drugs, as main challenges that hinder “Social consensus is needed on setting appropriate weighting factors and premiums that meet the Korean context.

 

Only through continuous institutional improvements by the government, academia, and industry can we simultaneously achieve patient accessibility and industrial innovation.”

Panels at the KRPIA 25th Anniversary Commemorative Panel Discussion

“New drugs pushed out of priority lists...

 

industry bears responsibility too” Responsibility within the industry itself was mentioned, alongside systemic limitations.

 

Calls continued for the pharmaceutical industry to prioritize patient access as its foremost value.

 

Dailypharm journalist Yoon-ho Eo remarked, “While the government and industry engage in reimbursement battles, many drugs are being pushed out of the priority list and disappearing.

 

As a result, patients are losing timely access to essential medicines.” He added, “Companies tend to concentrate reimbursement strategies only on flagship products.

 

Alongside government efforts, the industry must itself prioritize expanding patient access.” Specific improvement tasks were also proposed.

 

Tae-Kyung Kim, a specialist at Yoon&Yang criticized the practice of cost-effectiveness-centric evaluations and stressed the need for new approaches.

 

Kim noted, “It's a positive change that various values beyond cost-effectiveness are now reflected in evaluations, leading to higher reimbursement rates for new drugs that would have struggled to gain listing in the past.

 

However, in practice, rather than recognizing the value of new drugs, the structure has solidified into one where the government reduces uncertainty through risk-sharing agreements (RSAs).” “The transfer of uncertainty via risk-sharing agreements is effectively resulting in ‘self-pay by pharmaceutical companies.

 

Health technology assessments must become more flexible to reflect realistic real-world treatment patterns.” Moderator Eui-Kyung Lee, Professor at Sungkyunkwan University’s College of Pharmacy, said, “Post-COVID-19, two values—patient safety and speed—have simultaneously come to the fore.

 

It is essential to find a balance between health insurance finances, timeliness, and safety, while adopting a more multi-dimensional and flexible approach for evaluating the value of innovative medicines.”