Health Economics Policy and Law最新文献

A substantial share of the global population continues to face barriers to accessing essential medicines. While the pharmaceutical industry's business model has successfully facilitated the development of innovative medications, efforts to promote universal access to medicines (UAM) remain ineffective. This paper critically assesses the existing barriers to global access to medicines, including the role of unsuitable governance, the protection of intellectual property rights, and other market barriers such as shortages, quality shortcomings, and high prices. Furthermore, we explore a number of promising potential strategies that can help towards achieving the UAM. Specifically, we evaluate the evidence from various initiatives, including alternative models of innovation, manufacturing, procurement, intellectual property management, and structural/organisational operations. We argue that the effective realisation of UAM requires a robust framework to implement these initiatives. This framework must strike a delicate balance between addressing public health needs, incentivising research and development, and ensuring affordability. Achieving such a balance encompasses a careful oversight and collaboration between national and international regulatory bodies.

We present a methodology for a new composite, quantitative "mash-up" index of health system sustainability and resilience, drawing on a qualitative framework developed to assess these dimensions of the health system. The paper summarises quantifiable measures of sustainability and resilience, with sustainability defined through 7 domains and 50 indicator variables, while health system resilience is based on 6 domains and 23 variables. Each domain is captured by a separate index. A composite index is constructed through aggregation across the two dimensions, and their associated domains and indicators. All indices are aggregated through estimation of a geometric means, and are bound between 0 and 100. We pilot across 5 countries over 23 years, with the ultimate aim of identifying health policy strategies for improving national health system capacities and performances; as well as facilitating policy responses to address problematic issues of sustainability and resilience. Face validity suggests that the index captures the non-resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pilot study reveals considerable differences at both the dimension and domain levels within and between the examined countries, while suggesting scope for improvement in both dimensions across all countries. The index thus provides an indicative approach for temporal and spatial yardstick comparison.

While a substantial amount of evidence exists on factors associated with positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes, the evidence on the same regarding rejections is scarce. Using a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in seven Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, we empirically examine the factors associated with HTA rejections and study the magnitude of inter-agency differences in technology appraisals. Data were extracted from HTA reports between 2009 and 2020. The primary outcome was the probability of rejection, which was examined with respect to several regulatory, disease-related, evidence (clinical and economic) and unaddressed uncertainty variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. Out of N = 1,405 HTA assessments, the rejection rate was 12.9% (n = 181). Significant predictors of HTA rejection were submissions for drugs with cancer or orphan indications (but not both), low quality of evidence and the presence of uncertainties surrounding clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, and economic model utility inputs. Systematic differences between agencies in their propensity for rejecting the same drugs were revealed, particularly in relation to cancer and rare diseases. Despite the low rejection rate, our findings suggest that it is critical to improve quality of evidence, focus on risk mitigation strategies as a means of reducing the impact of uncertainties and share HTA practices across borders to increase consistency in decision-making.

Competition regulation plays a key role in determining firm size, market structure, and what firms can do with their market power. In this paper, we explore how competition regulation in many countries has largely tolerated rising industry concentration and market power in harmful consumer product industries, which, in turn, has likely facilitated an increase in preventable death and disease associated with such industries (ie. industrial epidemics). One important reason for this tolerance has been the rise of the 'consumer welfare' standard, which contends that competition regulators should only focus on a narrow set of concerns mostly relating to consumer price and output. Yet, recent developments shed light on potential avenues through which competition regulation could work more synergistically with public health policies and programmes. While discussions on how to leverage competition regulation along these lines are invariably contested and complex, we argue that it is critical that public health advocates engage with these discussions.

This article examines the relationship between primary care (PC) settings and the uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines in 29 European countries. Using multiple linear regression, the study evaluates whether PC settings influence vaccine uptake (VU) for these two vaccines. Based on secondary data, the study shows that people behave differently in the context of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. Our findings suggest that health systems relied less on PC during the pandemic, not fully using its potential for COVID-19 vaccination. Even if the bivariate correlations highlight the importance of PC, the regression analysis did not verify a direct relation between PC strength and the COVID-19 VU. In contrast, for influenza vaccination, PC strength was the only significant variable. The core research message is that systematic comparative evidence regarding the relation between PC and VU is needed. Based on the belief that appropriate PC setting and adequate general practitioners (GP) involvement in vaccination could contribute to higher VU, the main policy implication of the research is that more attention needs to be paid to PC setting and the role of GPs in vaccination policy.

In the Dutch health care system of regulated competition, health insurers are assigned the crucial role of prudent purchasers and expected to critically contract providers based on the quality and prices of their services. Thus far, however, these organisations have struggled to fulfil this role. This study sheds new light on the purchasing behaviour of Dutch health insurers. We examine how insurers perceive the context in which the value-based purchasing of hospital care should take shape, and we draw on insights from institutional theory to frame our analysis. Our findings are based on a series of semi-structured interviews (n = 18) with employees and representatives of several insurer companies whose combined market shares add up to over 90 per cent of all premium payers. Our analysis highlights an environment in which market mechanisms are tangled up with historically rooted budgeting practices, where insurers are pressured to sustain rather than critique hospitals, and where self-regulating medical professionals are firmly supported by society's deep-seated belief in the quality of their services. Like many other organisations, Dutch health insurers tend to conform to their institutional environment. While this conformity may aid them in organisational stability and survival, it also restricts their ability to purchase prudently.

Background: Health insurers' role in healthcare systems based on managed competition comprises various tasks. Misconceptions about these tasks may result in low public trust, which may hamper health insurers in performing their tasks. This study examines the relationship between enrollees' perceptions of health insurers' tasks and their trust in them.

Methods: A questionnaire in November 2021 asked respondents to indicate to what extent health insurers have to perform certain tasks, whether they actually perform them, and whether they think these tasks are important. Trust was measured using a validated multiple-item scale. The results from 837 respondents (56 per cent response rate) were analysed using multivariate regression models.

Results: A larger mismatch between enrollees' expectations about health insurers' tasks and their actual statutory tasks is related to less trust regarding the categories 'controlling healthcare costs' and 'mediation and quality of care'. Second, a larger mismatch between expectations and actually performed tasks is related to less trust for all categories. Importance of tasks only affects this relationship concerning 'informing about price and availability of care'.

Conclusions: This study emphasises the importance of reducing enrollees' misconceptions as trust in health insurers is necessary to fulfil their role as purchaser of care.

While the literature has largely focused on legal challenges to public healthcare rationing decisions, claims against private insurance companies in voluntary health insurance (VHI) schemes have received less attention. This paper aims to fill this gap by analysing a representative sample of 1,547 court of appeal decisions related to treatment funding claims filed against private insurance companies in Brazil from 2018 to 2021. Courts decided 83.6% of cases in favour of patients, ordering VHI companies to fully fund the claimed treatment. Patients´ rate of success is even higher (96%) in the cases in which insurance companies denied coverage on the grounds that the claimed treatment was not listed in the benefits package mandated by regulation. Court decisions present additional challenges to setting priorities through health technology assessment and explicit packages in the VHI sector. This has broader implications for health care equality and access in Brazil.

The standard analytical framework of insurance markets by Einav and Finkelstein (EF) focuses on the problem of welfare loss for low-risk individuals. A key assumption of this framework is that demand and cost curves are tightly linked, meaning that people are willing to pay a price equal to their expected cost plus a risk premium. Using data from the German risk-adjustment system we show that the distribution of expected health care costs is extremely skewed. We show that incorporating the extreme skewness of predictable individual health care expenses in the EF framework has important welfare consequences, which are typically overlooked when using this framework for analysing the negative welfare effects of voluntary health insurance markets with asymmetric information. Rather than the welfare loss of low-risk individuals due to underinsurance, the main problem of voluntary health insurance markets is the welfare loss of high-risk individuals not getting access to health insurance and affordable health care. We discuss that among the policy approaches to reduce this problem, mandatory health insurance with mandatory cross subsidies is likely to be the most effective, which is typically not recognised when focusing primarily on the welfare loss for low-risk individuals.

Reforms to the means tests in England for state-financed long-term care were planned for implementation in 2025. They included a lifetime limit (cap) on how much an individual must contribute to their care, with the state meeting subsequent care costs. We present projections of the costs and distributional impacts of these reforms for older people, using two linked simulation models which draw on a wide range of data. We project that by 2038 public spending on long-term care for older people in England would be about 14% higher than without the reforms. While the main direct beneficiaries of the lifetime cap would have been the better off who currently receive no state help with their care costs, the reforms also treated capital assets more generously than the current system, helping people with more modest incomes and wealth. When analysing the impacts of the reforms it is therefore important to consider the whole reform package. Our results depend on a range of assumptions, and the impacts of the reforms would be sensitive to the levels of the cap and other reformed parameters of the means test on implementation.