Determinants of utilisation differences for cancer medicines in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden.

The European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2016-12-09 DOI:10.1007/s10198-016-0855-5
Alessandra Ferrario
{"title":"Determinants of utilisation differences for cancer medicines in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden.","authors":"Alessandra Ferrario","doi":"10.1007/s10198-016-0855-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Little comparative evidence is available on utilisation of cancer medicines in different countries and its determinants. The aim of this study was to develop a statistical model to test the correlation between utilisation and possible determinants in selected European countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 31 medicines for cancer treatment that obtained EU-wide marketing authorisation between 2000 and 2012 was selected. Annual data on medicines' utilisation covering the in- and out-patient public sectors were obtained from national authorities between 2008 and 2013. Possible determinants of utilisation were extracted from HTA reports and complemented by contacts with key informants. A longitudinal mixed effect model was fitted to test possible determinants of medicines utilisation in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the all-country model, the number of indications reimbursed positively correlated with increased consumption of medicines [one indication 2.6, 95% CI (1.8-3.6); two indications 2.4, 95% CI (1.4-4.3); three indications 4.9, 95% CI (2.2-10.9); all P < 0.01], years since EU-wide marketing authorisation [1.2, 95% CI (1.02-1.4); p < 0.05], price per DDD [0.9, 95% CI (0.998-0.999), P < 0.01], and Prescrire rating [0.5, 95% CI (0.3-0.9), P < 0.05] after adjusting for time and other covariates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, the most important correlates of increased utilisation in a sample of cancer medicines introduced in the past 15 years were: medicines coverage and time since marketing authorisation. Prices had a negative effect on consumption in Belgium and Sweden. The positive impact of financial MEAs in Scotland suggests that the latter may remove the regressive effect of list prices on consumption.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5641289/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0855-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Little comparative evidence is available on utilisation of cancer medicines in different countries and its determinants. The aim of this study was to develop a statistical model to test the correlation between utilisation and possible determinants in selected European countries.

Methods: A sample of 31 medicines for cancer treatment that obtained EU-wide marketing authorisation between 2000 and 2012 was selected. Annual data on medicines' utilisation covering the in- and out-patient public sectors were obtained from national authorities between 2008 and 2013. Possible determinants of utilisation were extracted from HTA reports and complemented by contacts with key informants. A longitudinal mixed effect model was fitted to test possible determinants of medicines utilisation in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden.

Results: In the all-country model, the number of indications reimbursed positively correlated with increased consumption of medicines [one indication 2.6, 95% CI (1.8-3.6); two indications 2.4, 95% CI (1.4-4.3); three indications 4.9, 95% CI (2.2-10.9); all P < 0.01], years since EU-wide marketing authorisation [1.2, 95% CI (1.02-1.4); p < 0.05], price per DDD [0.9, 95% CI (0.998-0.999), P < 0.01], and Prescrire rating [0.5, 95% CI (0.3-0.9), P < 0.05] after adjusting for time and other covariates.

Conclusions: In this study, the most important correlates of increased utilisation in a sample of cancer medicines introduced in the past 15 years were: medicines coverage and time since marketing authorisation. Prices had a negative effect on consumption in Belgium and Sweden. The positive impact of financial MEAs in Scotland suggests that the latter may remove the regressive effect of list prices on consumption.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比利时、苏格兰和瑞典抗癌药物使用差异的决定因素。
背景:关于不同国家癌症药物使用情况及其决定因素的比较证据很少。本研究旨在建立一个统计模型,以测试选定欧洲国家的使用率与可能的决定因素之间的相关性:方法:选取 2000 年至 2012 年期间在欧盟范围内获得上市许可的 31 种癌症治疗药物作为样本。2008 年至 2013 年期间,从各国政府部门获得了涵盖住院和门诊公共领域的年度药物使用数据。从 HTA 报告中提取了药物使用的可能决定因素,并通过与关键信息提供者的接触加以补充。我们建立了一个纵向混合效应模型,以检验比利时、苏格兰和瑞典药品使用情况的可能决定因素:在所有国家的模型中,报销适应症的数量与药品消费量的增加呈正相关[一个适应症 2.6,95% CI (1.8-3.6);两个适应症 2.4,95% CI (1.4-4.3);三个适应症 4.9,95% CI (2.2-10.9);所有 P 结论:在这项研究中,在过去 15 年中推出的癌症药物样本中,使用率增加的最重要相关因素是:药品覆盖率和上市授权时间。在比利时和瑞典,价格对用药量有负面影响。苏格兰的财政多边环境协定产生了积极影响,这表明后者可以消除清单价格对消费的倒退效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mapping functions for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 to generate EQ-5D-3L for economic evaluation Economic assessment of abemaciclib for the adjuvant treatment of luminal HER2- breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish health system Healthcare resource utilisation and direct medical cost for individuals with 5q spinal muscular atrophy in Sweden Economic evaluation of intensive home treatment in comparison to care as usual alongside a randomised controlled trial The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1