Dataset Information

Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list.

ABSTRACT: To investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI).Medicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n?=?509) were compared with 2011 WHO EML for adults (n?=?359). For medicines with specific indication listed only in CIHI Basic List we assessed whether there was evidence in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews questioning their efficacy and safety.The two lists shared 188 medicines (52.4% of WHO EML and 32.0% of CIHI list). CIHI Basic List had 254 medicines and 33 combinations of these medicines which were not on the WHO EML, plus 14 medicines rejected and 20 deleted from WHO EML by its Evaluation Committee. For deleted medicines, we could obtain data that showed 2,965,378 prescriptions issued to 617,684 insured patients, and the cost of approximately € 41.2 million for 2012 and the first half of 2013, when the CIHI Basic List was in effect. For CIHI List-only medicines with a specific indication (n?=?164 or 57.1% of the analyzed set), fewer benefits or more serious side-effects than other medicines were found for 17 (10.4%) and not enough evidence for recommendations for specific indication for 21 (12.8%) medicines in Cochrane systematic reviews.National health care policy should use high-quality evidence in deciding on adding new medicines and reassessing those already present on national medicines lists, in order to rationalize expenditures and ensure wider and better access to medicines. The WHO EML and recommendations from its Evaluation Committee may be useful tools in this quality assurance process.

SUBMITTER: Jelicic Kadic A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4206465 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list.

Jeličić Kadić Antonia A Žanić Maja M Škaričić Nataša N Marušić Ana A

PloS one 20141022 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI).<h4>Methods</h4>Medicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n = 509) were compared with 2011 WHO EML for adults (n = 359). For medicines with specific indication listed only in CIHI Basic List we assessed whether there was evidence in Cochrane ...[more]

PMID: 25337860

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence-based decision on drug list or formulary has been applied worldwide. Although the importance of scientific evidence was emphasized, the decision-making procedures for including medicines into the national reimbursement drug list were often challenged by their process opacity and relying on subjective expert opinion. This study aimed to explore and assess the evidence for the effectiveness of anti-hypertensive medicines included on the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), and to provide recommendations for further improvement. METHODS:Three international evidence-based guidelines were selected to serve as reference criteria. The antihypertensive medicines included in NRDL of Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) were compared with recommended drugs in three international guidelines. Medicines recommended by at least two guidelines were considered to have sound evidence support for the effectiveness. Otherwise, published literature with high evidence grade, namely systematic review, meta-analysis and randomized controlled trial (RCT), were searched for further assessment. Medicines reported as fairly good effectiveness by literature with high evidence grade can be also considered having sound evidence for the effectiveness. Methodological quality of systematic review or meta-analysis was evaluated by AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement. Literature quality of RCTs was assessed by Jadad scale. RESULTS:For the 97 antihypertensive medicines in NRDL, there were sound evidence supports for the effectiveness of 56 kinds of medicines. Specifically, twenty-six of them were supported by international evidence-based guidelines, twenty were supported by systematic review or meta-analysis and the other ten by RCT. However, for the rest 41 medicines, there is insufficient evidence for their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS:Some antihypertensive medicines in NRDL did not have sufficient evidence for their effectiveness. Further evaluation and revision were required. It is also recommended to standardize decision-making procedures for inclusion of medicines, set up high quality evidence database to timely provide sound evidence, and so on.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to define the problems of the current use of the e-Catalogue and the national formulary (NF)-two elements of medicine pricing and reimbursement policies in Indonesia for achieving universal health coverage (UHC)-by examining the knowledge and attitudes of stakeholders. Specifically, to investigate (1) the perceived challenges involved in the further implementation of the e-Catalogue and the NF, (2) reasons of prescribing medicines not listed in the NF, and (3) possible improvements in the acceptance and use of the e-Catalogue and the NF. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders (policymakers, healthcare providers, a pharmaceutical industry representative, and experienced patients) to collect the qualitative data. The data was analysed using directed content analysis, following the guidelines of the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative studies (COREQ) in reporting the findings. RESULTS:Interestingly, 20 of 45 participants decided to withdraw from the interview due to their lack of knowledge of the e-Catalogue and the NF. All 25 stakeholders who fully participated in this research were in favor of the e-Catalogue and the NF. However, interviewees identified a range of challenges. A major challenge was the lack of harmonization between the lists of medicines in the e-Catalogue and the NF. Several system and personal reasons for prescribing medicines not listed in the NF were identified. Important reasons were a lack of incentives for physicians as well as a lack of transparent and evidence-based methods of selection for the medicines to be listed in the NF. CONCLUSIONS:The e-Catalogue and the NF have not been fully utilized for achieving UHC in Indonesia. Some possible improvements suggested were harmonization of medicines listed in the e-Catalogue and the NF, restructuring incentive programs for prescribing NF medicines, and increasing the transparency and evidence-based approach for selection of medicines listed in the e-Catalogue and the NF.

Project description:Background: The incorporation of genomic testing into clinical practice constitutes an opportunity to improve patients' lives, as it makes possible the implementation of innovative, individualized clinical interventions that maximize efficacy and/or minimize the risk of adverse drug reactions. In order to ensure equal access to genomic testing for all patients, the costs associated with these tests should be reimbursed by their respective national healthcare systems. Given that funding for the public health sector is decreasing in real terms, it is of paramount importance that the emerging interventions are thoroughly evaluated both in terms of their clinical effectiveness and their full economic cost. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify those genome-guided interventions that could be adopted and reimbursed by national healthcare systems. Further, we recorded the underlying factors determining the broad adoption of genome-guided interventions in clinical practice, in order to identify potential reimbursement criteria. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published (PubMed-listed) scientific articles on the economic evaluation of those individualized clinical interventions that include genomic tests. Information on genomic tests reimbursed by the US Medicare program was also included. Subsequently, we correlated the regulatory guidance given for the interventions collated in our systematic review with the corresponding economic evaluation results and policies of the Medicare program. Regulatory guidance information was collected from the PharmGKB online knowledgebase and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). Results: Most of the included studies constitute cost-utility analyses, in which the outcome of the interventions has been measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) whereas an estimate of the total cost has been based upon direct medical cost data. Favorable economic evaluation results, as well as concrete evidence demonstrating the clinical utility of pre-emptive genotyping, are considered as prerequisites for the broad adoption and reimbursement of the costs incurred during genomic testing. Indicatively, pre-emptive HLA-B*5701 and TPMT testing before administration of abacavir and azathioprine, respectively, is reimbursed by Medicare based on both economic and efficacy evidence. Likewise, the medical necessary screening for MMR and BRCA1/2 genes are reimbursed for high-risk populations. Conclusions: Our findings further underline the need for further cost-utility analyses within different national healthcare systems, in order to promote the reimbursement of the cost of innovative genome-guided therapeutic interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo improve understanding of the relationship between lack of insurance and risk of subsequent mortality.Data sourcesAdults who reported being uninsured or privately insured in the National Health Interview Survey from 1986 to 2000 were followed prospectively for mortality from initial interview through 2002. Baseline information was obtained on 672,526 respondents, age 18-64 at the time of the interview. Follow-up information on vital status was obtained for 643,001 (96 percent) of these respondents, with approximately 5.4 million person-years of follow-up.Study designRelationships between insurance status and subsequent mortality are examined using Cox proportional hazard survival analysis.Principal findingsAdjusted for demographic, health status, and health behavior characteristics, the risk of subsequent mortality is no different for uninsured respondents than for those covered by employer-sponsored group insurance at baseline (hazard ratio 1.03, 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.12). Omitting health status as a control variable increases the estimated hazard ratio to 1.10 (95 percent CI, 1.03-1.19). Also omitting smoking status and body mass index increases the hazard ratio to 1.20 (95 percent CI, 1.15-1.24). The estimated association between lack of insurance and mortality is not larger among disadvantaged subgroups; when the analysis is restricted to amenable causes of death; when the follow-up period is shortened (to increase the likelihood of comparing the continuously insured and continuously uninsured); and does not change after people turn 65 and gain Medicare coverage.ConclusionsThe Institute of Medicine's estimate that lack of insurance leads to 18,000 excess deaths each year is almost certainly incorrect. It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States.

Dataset Information

Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list.

Publications

Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure