- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2026-05-01 13:10:18
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Have we secured enough COVID-19 pills?
- by Dec 20, 2021 06:12am
- The world is in preparations to use oral COVID-19 treatments to end the pandemic. Following the UK, Demark became the second country to authorize the use of MSD’s (US Merck’s) ‘molnupiravir,’ with the EU and the US also reviewing approval of the said drug. Pfizer’s oral treatment ‘Paxlovid’ is also under regulatory review. Korea has also joined in the preparations and started the review process for ‘molnupiravir,’ and signed an advance purchase agreement with MSD and Pfizer for 312,000 courses of their treatments (242,000 courses from MSD and 70,000 courses from Pfizer). The authorities also significantly increased the budget for such purchases. Although 36.2 billion won was first allocated for COVID-19 treatments, the National Assembly had passed 192 billion won as reserve funds for additional purchases of such treatments on the 14th. As a result, a total of 228.2 billion won is being invested for oral COVID-19 treatments in Korea. Considering the total purchase volume alone, it may seem that Korea has secured a sufficient amount of oral treatments. However, with the pros and cons of the two treatments taking shape, it is questionable whether the amount and ratio of the two were a wise purchase. The government believes that there is a sufficient supply of oral treatments to prescribe to non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients who will be at high risk of progressing to severe disease. The weekday daily confirmed COVID-19 cases as of December 19th was 6,834 per day, with an average of 755 hospitalizations per day. The drug will be used on COVID-19 patients with comorbidities such as old age, obesity, diabetes, heart condition, etc among the daily 6,079 non-hospitalized cases. Although the molnupiravir that Korea purchased the most is, in theory, effective against all COVID-19 variants, the most recent clinical trial left lingering questions regarding its efficacy against the more recent variants. Although interim analysis of patients that were confirmed with COVID-19 between May and August showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by half compared to placebo, the same drug had much less effect, a 30% efficacy in reducing risk on those who were confirmed with COVID-19 between August and October. The reduced efficacy in the second half of the period when the delta mutation was dominant has been raising concern that molnupiravir may not be so effective against the delta variant. Also, a long-term safety concern has been raised on molnupiravir as a ribonucleoside analogue that enters the COVID-19 virus’s RNA. The concerns raised had deepened the authorities’ concerns over how to set the target patient group for the oral treatment. In other words, the number of patients that may be authorized to recieve molnupiravir may be partially restricted or limited. Pfizer had announced clinical trial results of Paxlovid demonstrating an 89% efficacy in high-risk patients. ALso, ongoing clinical trials indicate that there is a higher likelihood that a broader range of patients will be allowed to use Paxlovid. Pfizer is conducting trials on non-hospitalized patients at low risk of hospitalization or death (EPIC-SR) and as post-exposure prophylaxis on patients exposed to COVID-19 (EPIC-PEP). According to Pfizer’s announcement on the 14th, Paxlovid may reduce the risk of progression to moderate-to-severe disease by 70% in standard-risk patients such as healthy non-elderly adults or those who have risk factors but have received vaccinations. Based on such observations, the 242,000 courses of molnupiravir may not be used as much as expected and the 70,000 courses of Paxlovid may not be enough. Also, the price of Paxlovid may increase if molnupiravir has a lower-than-expected effect. Pfizer had raised the price of its COVID-19 vaccines in August for similar reasons. This is why we cannot rest assured with the 310,000 courses that we secured in advance.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Moderna needs to learn the Korean way
- by Dec 14, 2021 05:57am
- “We expect the establishment of the Korean subsidiary will aid the smooth supply of mRNA vaccines and allow for a more active engagement and communication with the Korean government, media, and academia.” This was what Moderna had said on the 2nd to the invited media at a press conference. Moderna’s establishment of the Korean subsidiary had been the focus of all interest, that a US biotech that had gained nationwide fame in the COVID-19 pandemic will be establishing a subsidiary in Korea. Their establishment of a branch indicates that their plans do not end at selling COVID-19 vaccines in the area. It had also signed CMO agreements with Samsung Biologics for the fill&finish manufacturing of its vaccine. In addition, there were rumors that the company may also CMO the drug substance as well or build a plant of its own to manufacture the drug substance. It was the same day that the company announced the appointment of Ji-Young Sohn as the new general manager of Moderna Korea. This official announcement was seen as the start of the company’s official activity in Korea and was why many had anticipated the press conference that was held that day. There were many questions to be asked on how the Korean subsidiary will be organized, its activities, the company’s plans in Korea, and collaboration with local companies, among others. However, the active engagement in communication that the company had signified was not up to par or two-way. The press conference that day was rather disappointing. Only two Moderna officials – the VP of Global Medical Affairs at Moderna HQ and the VP of Medical Affairs from the Korean subsidiary had attended the conference. The newly appointed GM was also not at the meeting, and the attendees refrained from answering any questions related to the company’s business activities as they are medical officials. The reporters were only able to get little insight into how the company’s workforce will be organized. The only response provided to questions unrelated to vaccines, such as those regarding the company, was that we should refer to the company’s PR agency for answers. Moderna only provided detailed information on its ‘plans to develop booster shots,’ and the ‘myocarditis side effect’ of vaccines that it had planned to deliver at the conference. Of course, such vaccine-related news is important information. But the company should have also been more open in sharing information about the activities and collaborations that will be made by the Korean branch that the media and the public were also curious about. From Moderna’s point of view, the actives of its Korean branch may not be such a big issue. But still, true communication entails the faithful exchange of questions and answers on both sides. The response and non-participation of relevant personnel required to answer questions are more of a non-communication. The miscommunications on Moderna's part this time left much to be desired.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Despite ↑reimbursed drugs for rare dz
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Dec 10, 2021 05:52am
- The need for improvement emerges every year, but patients with rare diseases are still struggling. In particular, even if there are drugs, the number of patients is so small that it is difficult to prove the cost effectiveness and predict financial consumption, making it difficult to register insurance benefits. There were many opinions this year. Kang Sun-woo, a member of the National Assembly Health and Welfare Committee, began holding a parliamentary debate in May to strengthen access to new drugs for rare genetic diseases, and in August, Kang Byeongwon, Kim Won-i, Seo Young-seok, and Shin Hyun-young held a public hearing to discuss ways to improve the treatment environment for rare diseases. But the HIRA reported that the average benefit rate for treatments for rare diseases was 85.3% (2016-2020) and 100% in 2020. At this rate, it is thought that the patient's access to the treatment for rare diseases was perfect. Then, why were there still many opinions on expanding benefits for treatments for rare diseases? The results announced by the HIRA differed from the benefit rate of drugs with rare diseases actually licensed as the benefit rate for drugs that went through the screening and evaluation process. Various factors such as dropout and voluntary withdrawal were excluded. According to data surveyed by the KRPIA and the KPBMA, only about 50% of the items designated as rare drugs over the past decade have been listed on the insurance benefit list for rare diseases. In order for the benefit rate of treatments for rare diseases to rise, the use of RSA and PE systems must eventually increase. Rare diseases are diseases in which the number of patients is less than 20,000 or difficult to diagnose, making it difficult to know the number of patients. In many cases, clinical trials themselves are difficult due to the small number of patients. Due to the small number of patients, it is difficult to actively develop new drugs because it is difficult to expect profitability in the market, and even if new drugs are developed with difficulty, it is difficult to prove cost effectiveness through PE. As a solution to this, the industry has insisted on expanding the PE exemption system. If there is no alternative drug, the PE exemption system should be applied even if it is approved for placebo control data, or the number of patients should be applied in accordance with the special calculation criteria. However, drug price adjustment for drugs subject to PE exemption has recently been predicted. The figure of 80% of the lowest A7 adjustment price has made the industry difficult for a while. In this regard, it is said that the HIRA and KRPIA meetings have recently clarified that they are at the "reference" level. The point is that PE exemption drugs increased and the government thought additional management measures were needed. The point is that PE exemption drugs increased and the government thought additional management measures were needed. If the government has reduced the risk factors, it should look at blind spots.This is because it is an area with few patients and no medicine.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Improving guidelines excluding PVA
- by Lee, Hye-Kyung Dec 09, 2021 05:58am
- The NHIS announced the revision of Article 6 (1) and (2) of the Price-Volume Agreement (PVA) detailed operation guidelines for "Article 6 (Drugs Excluding Negotiations)." According to the policy, The NHIS guidelines will be implemented immediately after the revision is made, but this time, they will be applied from January 1 next year after inquiring opinions as opposition from the pharmaceutical industry is expected. The revision calls for expanding the "same product group with an annual claim of less than 1.5 billion won" to "less than 2 billion won" in Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, "items with an upper limit of less than the arithmetic average of the main component code." The NHIS unveiled a plan to improve the PVA (excluding) system at the 10th public-private consultative body held on the 2nd. The reason is that PVA has been reserved for drugs with small insurance financial savings in consideration of the burden of the pharmaceutical industry and administrative costs required to conduct drug price negotiations, but guidelines have been improved due to various problems. When the health authorities made the guidelines in 2014, the standard for making the exclusion clause for PVA was a drug with a small effect on insurance financial savings. While operating PVA for 7 years and 4 months, drugs with a large effect of reducing insurance finances were often excluded from negotiations for reasons below the arithmetic average, or they voluntarily cut drug prices to avoid PVA. These drugs included blockbuster drugs with an annual claim of more than 80 billion won, which went against the PVA system. As a result of the NHIS' analysis of drugs that have avoided PVA negotiations with voluntary cuts within the past two years, a total of 39 drugs have been cut by 1 won, and some of them have exceeded the arithmetic average price. If the NHIS suddenly lowers its arithmetic average exclusion standard from 100% to 90%, the pharmaceutical industry will face a backlash. The NHIS said it has set the PVA negotiations to be omitted if it accepts a 10% drop in drug prices according to the "weighted average of alternative drugs 90%" of the new drug negotiations criteria. Like new drugs, it means to voluntarily cut 10% of the usage, or otherwise proceed with the NHIS and PVA. PVA will be able to proceed smoothly if it is a pharmaceutical company that makes a trick at the arithmetic average price, but it is also understandable that the pharmaceutical industry will protest if the arithmetic average price is reduced by 1%. There is no reason for the pharmaceutical industry to oppose the expansion of claims for the same product group under paragraph (1) 1. If the NHIS' simulation results raise the billing amount from 1.5 billion won to 2 billion won, 23 out of 59 items under the same regulation that completed PVA negotiations this year will be excluded from the list. The NHIS will receive opinions from the pharmaceutical industry on the PVA guidelines containing such information. KPBMA, KRPIA, and KOBIA, which have already participated in public-private consultations, have opposed the revision of the guidelines. There are two main contents of this amendment. The pharmaceutical industry may want only the criteria for expanding the amount of claims to be reflected and the criteria for reducing the arithmetic average to be not reflected. However, the NHIS may not be meaningful in improving the PVA guidelines with just one thing. The association's opinion is important during the opinion inquiry period, but it is also important to reflect the opinions of individual pharmaceutical companies according to their size. This is why it is important for pharmaceutical companies to express their opinions on improving PVA guidelines during this period.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] On the best way to issue impurity recalls
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Nov 29, 2021 05:58am
- Once again, impurities were detected in the losartan ingredient of antihypertensive drugs that are being used by many patients. Some pharmaceutical companies have already started product recalls under orders from the Ministry of Food and Safety. With the results of the companies’ impurity investigations being released one after another, the number of items subject to recall will continue to increase. The problem is in recalling drugs that were already taken by the patients. The MFDS had held roundtable meetings with doctors’ and pharmacists’ associations that had prescribed and sold the affected drugs and their manufacturers in preparation of the consumer recall in plan. The purpose of the meetings was clear: Who will bear the burden of the cost incurred during consumer recalls? As the government, doctors’ and pharmacists’ associations have unanimously pointed to the manufacturer/seller, these companies are expected to bear most of the recall costs. But what about the consumers? No discussions have been made with consumers on the consumers' part. Of course, for the consumers to receive re-prescriptions and switch drugs, advance discussions with medical/ pharmaceutical associations and manufacturers are inevitable. However, with the risk that medicines containing the impurities may continue to be prescribed, a ban should first be issued on the release and prescription of drugs that had excess impurities. If it is difficult to issue bans on the release and prescriptions of individual drugs, ton how to address this problem should be first discussed. However, the MFDS had warned and forbade individual action on the companies’ part before it issues a compressive announcement, fearing confusion. The MFDS' priority seems to be on muddling the voice of confusion and dissatisfaction that may arise in the recall process rather than on the prompt ban of harmful drugs. If consumer recall measures are implemented, we need to put more consideration into how to recall even one more tablet that contains such impurities. Looking at the past measures made by the MFDS, the authority had prepared a manual for the recall and let the consumers handle the exchange for themselves. With such inadequate publicity and post-measures, it is questionable whether any statistics have been collected on how much was recalled during the last impurity-related drug recall. Maybe the consumer recall is just a publicity gimmick to arouse public opinion rather than a sincere measure. In fact, neither the pharmaceutical associations nor pharmaceutical companies welcome consumer recalls, as such measures give rise to many cumbersome tasks including re-prescription, redispensing, and reimbursement of costs, etc. If consumer recall is inevitable, the MFDS should first consider measures that would minimize its effect on the consumers rather than discussing recalls with medical/pharmacist associations and pharmaceutical companies. And as the consumer recall is already considered certain, we need to now ask whether we are missing the ‘golden time’ for the recalls busy making pre-arrangement discussions before full recalls.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] On HIRA's price cuts for PE waiver drugs
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Nov 15, 2021 05:56am
- HIRA’s unilateral notice of its decision leaves a lingering question on whether this really was the best way to conclude the discussions. Couldn't the government have included its favorite words - "in discussion" or "in coordination" - that it uses best? The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service responded that the criteria for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of drugs that are waived submission of pharmacoeconomic evaluation data was set at ‘80% of the lowest A7 adjusted price’ rather than the lowest A7 adjusted price to a written QA submitted by NA member Miae Kim of the People Power Party during the NA audit. This is a sort of forced conclusion and a line drawn to the persistent resistance and controversy raised by the industry. On the news, the Korean Research-based Pharma Industry Association immediately issued its criticism, expressing strong regrets. KRPIA said, “During discussions with HIRA, we have continuously expressed that the uncertainties caused by the application of the risk-sharing system in A8 countries should be flexibly evaluated according to characteristics of each drug. A blanket application of the 80% standard without clear grounds on its calculation will seriously undermine access to drugs that are subject to pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemptions that are being allowed limited use in rare and severe disease patients.” The association added that such a standard would invalidate the system in itself. Some may consider the industry’s sullen response as a natural course of making transitions. However, the response provided for the NA audit was a blow in the back from the industry’s view as the issue had not been discussed after the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Division of Pharmaceutical Benefits had said it will continue to collect stakeholder opinions following the serious concerns that were raised in the two meetings the HIRA held with the industry (industry roundtable in June and the private consultative body in July). The pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemption system is the only way for drugs that cannot undergo economic evaluations but is necessary to receive reimbursement. Various fiscal management systems are included in the scheme, and the ‘Expenditure Cap’ design has been embraced ever since the system was implemented. With the increasing number of drugs being eligible for the system, the government could have deemed some improvement is necessary. However, the way how they implemented the system is regrettable. “We will continue discussions with stakeholders. We will review the issue.” Why HIRA was unable to implement the caution and ambiguity that it had so often implemented in the written response to the NA remains in question.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Verify the oral COVID-19 treatments
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Nov 10, 2021 05:55am
- Following COVID-19 vaccines, oral COVID-19 treatments are also expected to enter the market soon as the government plans to phase in 404,000 courses of COVID-19 oral antivirals from next February. If oral treatments for COVID-19 are introduced, Korea will have laid the groundwork for managing the COVID-19 virus like influenza. Also, clinical results for COVID-19 treatment candidates are being announced one after another. MSD's 'molnupiravir' was found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by 50% if taken within 5 days of symptom onset. Pfizer also released clinical results showing that ‘Paxlovid’ reduces the risk of hospitalization and death by 89% if taken within 3 days of symptom onset, and by 85% if taken within 5 days of symptom onset. The movement to introduce the drugs has also been speeding up abroad. On the 4th, the UK became the world’s first country to approve molnupiravir. The US FDA also plans to review the use of molnupiravir at the end of this month. The treatment is also set to be introduced in Korea from February through an advance purchase agreement. The faster the treatments are introduced the better, considering how late we were in introducing and commercializing vaccines compared to other countries at the end of last year. With legislation such as the Emergency Use Authorization established for the prompt introduction of such treatments, we will need to thoroughly prepare so that the oral antivirals developed abroad can promptly be imported for use in Korea. In addition to such prompt introduction, we would also need to pay close attention to and verify the oral treatments in advance so that the drugs may be safely used in Korean patients. This is a task for the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. As the government announced that it will introduce COVId-19 treatments in February, the MFDS does not have much time for review. Therefore, MFDS would need to independently conduct its review and thoroughly verify the safety of the treatment in the limited time provided rather than rely on news of approvals from agencies abroad to reassure the public. In other words, now is the time for the government to take initiative. The government should proactively search for and persuade pharmaceutical companies to promptly introduce their COVID-19 treatments to Korea even if they have no plan to introduce the drugs to Korea yet. The reality is that Korea will have to depend on COVID-19 treatments developed overseas, just like the case was for the vaccines. Rather than focus on the commercialization of domestic COVID-19 treatments, the government should fully mobilize its administrative power to promptly introduce new COVID-19 treatments developed overseas.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] New drugs for Alzheimer’s in development
- by Nov 05, 2021 05:24am
- "I felt like it was all a dream. But I wasn't sure if I was young dreaming that I’m older, or I was old dreaming that I was younger. I have Alzheimer's." This is what Hye-Ja Kim, acting as a dementia patient in the “The Light in Your Eyes” TV drama two years ago, said as she revealed her condition to her friends. The drama gained much acclaim with the twist that the story depicted the world from an Alzheimer’s patient's view rather than being a common ‘time leap (time travel)’ story. The most common cause of dementia among the 840,000 dementia patients over the age of 65 in Korea is Alzheimer’s. The exact pathogenesis or cause of Alzheimer’s remains unknown, but it is being presumed that the condition is caused by Beta-amyloid and tau deposition. One of the reasons why Alzheimer’s was feared was because no drug could fundamentally treat the disease, and only drugs used to improve cognitive function were available. Countless global pharmaceutical companies had attempted to develop treatments to no avail. With no treatment available, prevention was considered as the only option for Alzheimer’s. However, the field has entered a new turning point this year with Biogen introducing a new treatment for Alzheimer's. Biogen's 'aducanumab (product name: Aduhelm),' was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and Eli Lilly is also preparing for the approval and review of its ‘donanemab.' When approved, two new treatment options will suddenly be available in the 'impregnable' field of Alzheimer's disease. Of course, many issues remain to be addressed despite the introduction of these new drugs. Both Biogen and Lilly’s new drugs target beta-amyloid plaques and reduce beta-amyloid to improve Alzheimer’s symptoms such as cognitive function, etc. However, the issue is that it is unclear whether beta-amyloid is the determining cause of Alzheimer’s. Recent studies have shown that the tau protein may be the main cause of Alzheimer’s, which raises mixed opinions on what needs to be targeted to treat Alzheimer’s. Also, the two new drugs will need to be further verified. The FDA had granted breakthrough therapy designation to both drugs and accelerated approval for aducanumab in consideration of the lack of treatment for Alzheimer's. Donanemab is also expected to go through the same accelerated approval process soon. Drugs that are approved with the accelerated approval system can receive faster approval than through traditional review processes but needs to demonstrate their clinical benefit through a confirmatory trial. Otherwise, their approval is revoked. In particular, Biogen’s aducanumab needs to justify its approval through further clinical trials as its two Phase III trials showed mixed results. On the positive side, the introduction of these new drugs has changed public perception. Alzheimer’s is no longer considered unconquerable. Pharmaceutical companies in Korea and abroad are eagerly racing to be the first to develop more and better drugs for Alzheimer's. Just earlier last year, the COVID-19 outbreak brought fear to the whole world. However, with the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines and the introduction of COVID-19 treatments soon to be expected, COVID-19 has now entered the realm of being 'manageable.' This is why countries are now gaining the courage to attempt to live ‘With COVID-19’ even if more than 2,000 patients are confirmed every day. Awaiting the second new Alzheimer’s drug to come, I have faith that Alzheimer's will soon become manageable, as with COVID-19 and the many other crises that we managed to overcome.
- Opinion
- [Desk's view] It should also prepare for "With Corona"
- by Chon, Seung-Hyun Oct 25, 2021 05:50am
- The government has announced that it will shift the COVID-19 quarantine system to a "step-by-step daily recovery" (with COVID-19) centered on the management of the number of critically ill patients or deaths. As the proportion of COVID-19 vaccination completion exceeds 70%, a relaxed quarantine system such as lifting restrictions on operating hours for multi-use facilities such as restaurants and cafes is expected to be implemented. The pharmaceutical industry is also gradually moving to prepare for "With Corona." Along with the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people working at home seems to be reduced and the number of people working at the company is increasing. Some companies terminate the flexible working system implemented to avoid overlapping working hours of executives and employees as much as possible. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry has changed a lot in the COVID-19 situation that has been going on for more than a year and a half. The drug prescription market has changed significantly. Markets such as antibiotics and Jinhae girders have shrunk significantly as the number of flu and cold patients has plummeted due to strengthened personal hygiene management to prevent COVID-19. As the COVID-19 vaccination expanded, the pain reliever "Tylenol" jumped to the top in general drug sales. The market landscape has also changed as companies that have benefited from COVID-19 have emerged one after another. SK Bioscience's performance jumped sharply due to the consignment production of the COVID-19 vaccine. Samsung Biologics' performance has soared due to consignment production of COVID-19 antibody treatments, and it is also preparing to produce a Moder or COVID-19 vaccine. Diagnostic kit companies have exceeded 1 trillion won in sales. Pharmaceutical companies' R&D capabilities were also focused on conquering COVID-19. Many pharmaceutical bio companies have rushed to develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Celltrion, which was focusing on biosimilars, developed its own COVID-19 treatment "Regkirona." On the other hand, in general, domestic companies' R&D performance has been lower in technology exports than before COVID-19. The spread of COVID-19 has reduced direct exchanges with global companies and focused on non-face-to-face promotion, so they have not been able to actively win technology exports. Even if the government gradually eases the quarantine system, it will not return to its daily life before COVID-19 in a short period of time, but pharmaceutical companies should gradually prepare for "With COVID-19." If R&D capabilities are actively appealed at large domestic and international academic conferences in the future, it is expected that technology exports, which have been stagnant, will also become active. The development of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines also requires strategies. It is necessary to reflect on whether the R&D efforts to conquer COVID-19 were simply a trick to boost stock prices. Many people in the pharmaceutical industry were also hurt by COVID-19. However, we hope that the COVID-19 crisis will serve as an opportunity for our pharmaceutical industry to become more mature.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Disclosure of the results of the Committee
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Oct 25, 2021 05:49am
- The results of the Cancer Drugs Benefit Appraisal Committee were released from the 13th. The HIRA has accepted complaints continuously filed in the pharmaceutical industry. Some point out that they are not satisfied yet, but it can be said that it is encouraging in itself because the HIRA expressed its intention to deliver the exact reason for the success at the request of the company. In the pharmaceutical industry, discussions on expanding insurance benefits for new drugs have been focused on the Cancer Drugs Benefit Appraisal Committee along with the COVID-19 incident.The Cancer Drugs Benefit Appraisal Committee, which was discussing the clinical usefulness of drugs, began examining the financial burden last year. Since then, as more and more drugs are pending in the pharmaceutical industry due to the Cancer Drugs Benefit Appraisal Committee, even companies have submitted economic evaluation data to the subcommittee. Of course, there may have been many pharmaceutical companies that were greedy last year, and there may have been many drugs that were not clinically useful. So the industry's argument was focused on transparency. This was not a necessary procedure only for the pharmaceutical industry. This is because knowing which drugs have been judged to be unsuitable for what reason, greedy pharmaceutical companies can be criticized and make efforts to find a compromise. Of course, the disclosure of the details of the discussion is 'not yet', but the transparency of the committee has risen to the first level. Beyond the pharmaceutical industry, the healthcare industry is facing a new era. Patients, or their families, now search for surgical papers and search for new drug information in the clinical trial database clinic at clinicaltrial.gov. If domestic licensed drugs do not receive insurance benefits, complaints will pour out to the relevant ministries, the HIRA and the MOHW. The anger of patients and their families looking at "the medicine that exists but cannot be taken" is indescribable. The urgency that cannot be estimated unless it is a party, the level of knowledge of the people who have risen, and the administrative power resulting from the development of the Internet are amazing. Transparency in the process of listing or expanding insurance benefits for new drugs will gradually increase in the future. Both the government and pharmaceutical companies should now fear social views that include desperation. The disclosure of the results of the Cancer Drugs Benefit Appraisal Committee is welcome for now.
