The state can save big on social benefits if it invests in modern treatment, points out Mehrdad Doustdar, chairman of the board of directors of the Association of Innovative Pharmaceutical Industry (AIFP). In an exclusive interview, he presents a vision of a data-based Czech healthcare system.
The recently elected AIFP chair is also CEO of the Czech branch of MSD. He discussed the threats of the EU revision of the ’pharma package’ and the need to eliminate regional inequalities in the availability of centre-based treatment in the Czech Republic.
What is your main vision for the chairmanship of the AIFP board and what three specific goals would you like to pursue by the end of your term within the association?
I would like the AIFP to become a strong and reliable partner that actively shapes a modern, innovation‑friendly and financially sustainable healthcare system where patients have timely and equitable access to the best available treatment and prevention. I believe that this is our common goal with the new minister of health and I will do my best to support him in this.
You might be interested
Our ambition is a resilient healthcare system built on three essential pillars: innovation, access, and sustainability. Thus, the three things I would like to see by the end of the term are: improved access to innovative medicines and vaccines for Czech patients – by streamlining reimbursement processes, reducing unnecessary prescription restrictions and addressing regional inequalities in patient access to innovation. Secondly, predictable and competitive regulatory environment that supports clinical research, protects intellectual property and reflects the real value of innovation, thereby keeping Czechia attractive for investment in pharmaceutical development.
Thirdly, a data‑driven, prevention‑oriented system, where decisions are guided by tangible health outcomes and positive impacts on society, and where prevention, vaccination and early treatment are recognised as key economic as well as health investments. Achieving this requires close collaboration among all stakeholders, with industry as well as public partners, working together toward a shared purpose. I firmly believe that collaboration is our strongest lever for such a progress.
AIFP has long emphasized the benefits of innovative medicines for the national economy. What should the Association under your leadership focus on in order to improve the perception of modern treatment as an investment, not just as a cost?
The key is to consistently provide evidence that innovative medicines and vaccines are among the most effective tools to reduce the long‑term burden of disease on patients, the healthcare budget and the wider economy. Modern therapies do not only prolong life and improve its quality; they also prevent complications, reduce hospitalisations and help people stay active and productive for longer.
Based on the data from social security system we clearly see the investment in innovation reduce the amount of social benefits that would otherwise be needed. So bottom line: There is robust evidence that shows that healthcare spending is an investment, not just an expense, with the greatest impact coming from prevention, early detection, and effective treatment.
Therefore, we will focus on:
– providing robust data and health‑economic analyses that quantify the societal value of innovation, including avoided disability, longer working lives and savings in social benefits,
– dialogue with policymakers, payers and the public, so that modern therapies and vaccines are perceived as strategic investments into human capital and future competitiveness of the country, not as a short‑term budget burden,
– laying down concrete examples such as vaccination programmes or early cancer and cardiovascular patients treatment that clearly demonstrate how every crown invested in prevention and innovation can save several crowns in future health and social expenditures.
As chairman of the AIFP Board, how do you plan to communicate with the health ministry and health insurance companies so that the association enjoys the reputation of a key partner in the creation of health strategies?
Such communication has to be regular, transparent and oriented toward joint problem‑solving. The ambition is to be at the table whenever strategic decisions are made about access to medicines, prevention, data infrastructure or the long‑term sustainability of the system. In practice, I want to strengthen collaboration along three lines.
Firstly, through structured strategic dialogue, for example via regular high‑level roundtables. Secondly, through expert working groups where AIFP brings specific analyses, international benchmarks and proposals that can directly translate into legislative or non-legislative measures. Thirdly, through joint projects, for instance in clinical trials, real‑world evidence or pilot programmes in prevention and screening, which show that partnership with industry delivers measurable benefit for patients and payers.
The European Union is currently undergoing the biggest revision of general pharmaceutical legislation (GPL) in the last 20 years. What are the biggest threats you see in the current proposal of the ‘pharma package’ for Europe’s competitiveness vis-à-vis the US and China?
The conclusion of the pharmaceutical package by the European Union is a significant moment in shaping the future of one of Europe’s most strategically important sectors, also influencing Czechia’s health security and patient care for decades. Yet, on its own it still does not do enough to restore Europe’s competitiveness in innovative medicines compared with the US or China. There are some clear positives: shorter regulatory timelines, a regulatory sandbox and steps toward more digital, efficient regulation. Still, the framework does not fully reverse the long‑term decline in Europe’s share of global R&D investment and clinical trials.
At the same time, the just introduced broader “health package”, especially the new Biotech Act and the targeted revision of the Medical Device Regulation and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation, sends a more encouraging signal that Europe wants to be a place where breakthrough science is developed, tested and scaled.
One of the points of the GPL revision is the reduction of the regulatory data protection period (RDP). What impact should this measure have on the willingness of innovative companies to introduce new products to the European and Czech markets?
A key factor in attracting and retaining global investment into European R&D for innovative medicines, is strengthening rather than weakening IP. RDP is a fundamental incentive for high‑risk R&D investment, so I welcome the decision to keep the status quo of eight years of RDP baseline (compared to the original Commission´s proposal reducing the baseline). However, we must reflect the complexity of the whole EU regulatory ecosystem for innovation that is still not making Europe a first‑choice destination.
The compromise on conditioning market protection and creating legal uncertainty around the Bolar exemption, risk further eroding competitiveness within the innovative sector. The compromise reflects the thinking from a previous political era, and a renewed enthusiasm to value and prioritise healthcare innovation in Europe going forward will be important to reverse the current trend of loss of investment to other parts of the world.
That is why we look hopeful at the proposed Biotech Act for delivering on a more promising direction and to strengthen parts of the IP framework, including a targeted extension of Supplementary Protection Certificates for certain biotech and advanced therapies. This is an important lever to enhance Europe’s attractiveness for pharmaceutical R&D.
The key will be to ensure that we get the right balance on the conditions seeking to ensure that this truly supports innovation in areas where innovation is most urgently necessary, and applies in a non-discriminatory way. In addition, the proposals for faster, more coordinated clinical‑trial processes under the Biotech Act and MDR/IVDR revision can also make Europe a more attractive place to generate pivotal data, which is often a precondition for early launch.
How is the Czech health insurance system ready to face the arrival of the latest therapies from AIFP member companies? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Czech environment in terms of innovation?
The Czech health care system has made significant progress in recent years and gives patients access to a large proportion of innovative medicines available in Europe. At the same time, it is under growing pressure from demographic ageing, increasing numbers of patients with chronic diseases and limited public resources.
To name the strengths, Czechia has a robust public insurance system, experienced health technology assessment, strong clinical centres and a very good track‑record in attracting clinical trials. I also believe this country is full of highly talented and very capable people. Among the weaknesses, pricing and reimbursement processes are still relatively lengthy, some prescription restrictions are overly rigid, limiting the development of therapeutic potential for a wider patient groups and the current setup of the centre‑based treatment model for many modern therapies limits capacity and creates regional inequalities in patient access. If the system is to absorb the next wave of therapies, it will be necessary to modernise financing mechanisms, expand the use of data, and evaluate innovation by its desired outcomes including total societal value rather than by the immediate impact on the annual health budget.
How do you personally manage to combine the role of the managing director of the Czech branch of a large pharmaceutical company with the role of the Chairman of the industry association Board and what does this new professional challenge mean to you?
First and foremost, I am deeply grateful and humbled that my industry colleagues have placed their trust in me and elected me as Chairman of AIFP. Naturally, combining the two roles is both a professional privilege and a great responsibility. They have common denominators that I can and will fully leverage: strong focus on patients, access to innovation and the long‑term sustainability of the healthcare system in which we operate.
Yet, there are challenges, such as separation of roles and transparency. When speaking on behalf of AIFP, it must be clear that I represent the entire innovative industry, not one company. I also need a strong team on both sides, at MSD and within AIFP, which allows me to focus on strategic issues while relying on highly competent colleagues in operational matters. What helps me a lot is my genuine motivation: I feel a deep commitment to help building a healthier and more competitive Czechia.Acountry, where I feeldeeply fortunate to live and work in. A country, which I am greatly fond of and where my family found a second home. Leading AIFP is a natural extension of this mission.
