A SWOT analysis of the complex interdependencies of the Maltese reimbursement processes

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Policy Open Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI:10.1016/j.hpopen.2023.100095
Katharina Abraham, Margreet Franken
{"title":"A SWOT analysis of the complex interdependencies of the Maltese reimbursement processes","authors":"Katharina Abraham,&nbsp;Margreet Franken","doi":"10.1016/j.hpopen.2023.100095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The processes that operationalize the evaluation framework for new medicines are implemented to reach the system objectives of public health, financial sustainability, and equitability. However, when the activities and procedures of these processes are misaligned, the objectives of the system may be at risk.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To evaluate the supporting processes for introducing new medicines in public healthcare services in Malta.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We first reviewed literature on the Maltese reimbursement system and subsequently conducted semi-structured interviews based on the Hutton Framework. Interviewees included policy makers, committee members, procurement staff, medical specialists, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical industry representatives. After validation, we analysed the data with a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most medicines are assessed for introduction on the Government Formulary List. Exceptional requests fall outside this policy and pass through the Exceptional Medicinal Treatment route. Efficiency, quality, and transparency are major weaknesses across the supporting processes. Taking up responsibility, however, is considered the most important factor in reaching system objectives. Stakeholders tend to shift responsibilities to other processes, start/stop activities that impact the activities of subsequent processes whilst dismissing any contribution to the weaknesses of the system. Consequently, system objectives cannot be reached in an optimum manner.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Maltese case showed that recommendations for introducing new medicines in the public healthcare setting are influenced beyond the choice of HTA tools and criteria. Earmarked budgets, political steering, delays, and uninformed applicants as well as HTA capacity are impeding on system goals of public health, equity, and sustainability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34527,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy Open","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100095"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10297753/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590229623000072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The processes that operationalize the evaluation framework for new medicines are implemented to reach the system objectives of public health, financial sustainability, and equitability. However, when the activities and procedures of these processes are misaligned, the objectives of the system may be at risk.

Objectives

To evaluate the supporting processes for introducing new medicines in public healthcare services in Malta.

Methods

We first reviewed literature on the Maltese reimbursement system and subsequently conducted semi-structured interviews based on the Hutton Framework. Interviewees included policy makers, committee members, procurement staff, medical specialists, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical industry representatives. After validation, we analysed the data with a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis.

Results

Most medicines are assessed for introduction on the Government Formulary List. Exceptional requests fall outside this policy and pass through the Exceptional Medicinal Treatment route. Efficiency, quality, and transparency are major weaknesses across the supporting processes. Taking up responsibility, however, is considered the most important factor in reaching system objectives. Stakeholders tend to shift responsibilities to other processes, start/stop activities that impact the activities of subsequent processes whilst dismissing any contribution to the weaknesses of the system. Consequently, system objectives cannot be reached in an optimum manner.

Conclusions

The Maltese case showed that recommendations for introducing new medicines in the public healthcare setting are influenced beyond the choice of HTA tools and criteria. Earmarked budgets, political steering, delays, and uninformed applicants as well as HTA capacity are impeding on system goals of public health, equity, and sustainability.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
马耳他报销流程复杂相互依存关系的SWOT分析
背景实施新药评估框架的过程是为了实现公共卫生、财政可持续性和公平性的系统目标。然而,当这些过程的活动和程序不一致时,系统的目标可能会面临风险。目的评估在马耳他公共医疗服务中引入新药的支持过程。方法我们首先回顾了有关马耳他报销制度的文献,随后基于Hutton框架进行了半结构化访谈。受访者包括政策制定者、委员会成员、采购人员、医学专家、药剂师和制药行业代表。验证后,我们对数据进行了优势、劣势、机会和威胁(SWOT)分析。结果大多数药物都被评估为可列入《政府处方清单》。特殊请求不在此政策范围内,并通过特殊药物治疗途径。效率、质量和透明度是整个支持流程的主要弱点。然而,承担责任被认为是实现系统目标的最重要因素。利益相关者倾向于将责任转移到其他流程,启动/停止影响后续流程活动的活动,同时忽略对系统弱点的任何贡献。因此,无法以最佳方式实现系统目标。结论马耳他的案例表明,在公共医疗环境中引入新药的建议受到的影响超出了HTA工具和标准的选择范围。专项预算、政治指导、延误、不知情的申请人以及HTA能力阻碍了公共卫生、公平和可持续性的系统目标。
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
Health Policy Open
Health Policy Open Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊最新文献
The cost of the reemergence of monkeypox: An overview of health financing in Africa Closing the equity gap: A call for policy and programmatic reforms to ensure inclusive and effective HIV prevention, treatment and care for persons with disabilities in Eastern and Southern Africa Patient’s willingness to pay for improved community health insurance in Tanzania Improving antibiotic prescribing – Recommendations for funding and pricing policies to enhance use of point-of-care tests From theory to practice: Harmonizing taxonomies of trustworthy AI
×
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