Journal of market access & health policy最新文献

Healthcare is a huge business sector in many countries, focusing on the social function of delivering quality health when people develop illness. The system is essentially financed by public funds based on the solidarity principle. With a large financial outlay, the sector must use economic evaluation methods to achieve better efficiency. The objective of our study was to evaluate and to understand how health economics is used today, taking Belgium as an example of a high-income country. The evaluation started with a historical view of healthcare development and ended with potential projections for its future. A literature review focused on country-specific evaluation reports to identify the health economic methods used, with a search for potential gaps. The first results indicated that Belgium in 2021 devoted 11% of its GDP, 17% of its total tax revenue, and 30% of the national Social Security Fund to health-related activities, totalizing EUR 55.5 billion spending. The main health economic method used was a cost-effectiveness analysis linked to budget impact, assigning reimbursable monetary values to new products becoming available. However, these evaluation methods only impacted at most 20% of the money circulating in healthcare. The remaining 80% was subject to financial regulations (70%) and budgeting (10%), which could use many other techniques of an economic analysis. The evaluation indicated two potentially important changes in health economic use in Belgium. One was an increased focus on budgeting with plans, time frames, and quantified treatment objectives on specific disease problems. Economic models with simulations are very supportive in those settings. The other was the application of constrained optimization methods, which may become the new standard of practice when switching from fee-for-service to pay-per-performance as promoted by value-based healthcare and value-based health management. This economic refocusing to a more constrained approach may help to keep the healthcare system sustainable and affordable in the face of the many future challenges including ageing, climate change, migration, pandemics, logistical limitations, and financial instability.

This study assessed direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) switching/discontinuation patterns in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in 2019, by quarter (Q1-Q4), and associated socioeconomic risk factors. Adults with NVAF initiating stable DOAC treatment (July 2018-December 2018) were selected from Symphony Health Solutions' Patient Transactional Datasets (April 2017-January 2021). Switching/discontinuation rates were reported in 2019 Q1-Q4, separately. Non-medical switching/discontinuation (NMSD) was defined as the difference between switching/discontinuation rates in Q1 and mean rates across Q2-Q4. The associations of socioeconomic factors with switching/discontinuation were assessed. Of 46,793 patients (78.7% ≥ 65 years; 52.6% male; 7.7% Black), 18.0% switched/discontinued their initial DOAC in Q1 vs. 8.8% on average in Q2-Q4, corresponding to an NMSD of 9.2%. During the quarter following the switch/discontinuation, more patients who switched/discontinued in Q1 remained untreated (Q1: 77.0%; Q2: 74.3%; Q3: 71.2%) and fewer reinitiated initial DOAC (Q1: 17.6%; Q2: 20.8%; Q3: 24.0%). Factors associated with the risk of switching/discontinuation in Q1 were race, age, gender, insurance type, and household income (all p < 0.05). More patients with NVAF switched/discontinued DOACs in Q1 vs. Q2-Q4, and more of them tended to remain untreated relative to those who switched/discontinued later in the year, suggesting a potential long-term impact of NMSD. Findings on factors associated with switching/discontinuation highlight potential socioeconomic discrepancies in treatment continuity.

At least since the Age of Enlightenment, good health has been a tenet for society. Healthy societies could learn better, work harder, improve their wealth, and live longer. Today societies focus on life expectancy, as we value long and healthy lives. As illustrated by the provision of COVID-19 vaccines first for the elderly, societies value life-saving actions. Paradoxically, health economic assessments conventionally devalue long-lasting health through the practice of discounting health benefits along with costs. However, health, with its intrinsic and instrumental characteristics, is not synonymous with money cash, a tradeable asset that devalues with time. If improving healthy life expectancy is a societal ambition, it seems counter-intuitive to value future health less as a result of an artificial mathematical construct when evaluating economically new medical interventions. In this paper, we investigate the application of discounting health in healthcare and consider paradoxical findings, especially in relation to disease prevention with vaccination. We argue that there is no economically sustainable argument to discount health gains, except for the benefit of the payer with a goal of spending less on life-saving products. If that is the objective for discounting health, there are other means to achieve the same goal in a more transparent and simpler way. From the long-term perspective of healthcare development, not discounting health gains would encourage research that values long-term effects. This in turn has the potential to benefit the investor, the payer, and the patient/consumer, improving the situation from multiple perspectives.

Objective: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are first-line therapy for stroke prevention for 1.4 million atrial fibrillation (AF) patients in the UK. However, the rates of DOAC dosing below evidence-based recommendations are estimated between 9% and 22%. This study explores specific patient and physician factors associated with prescribing inappropriate DOAC underdoses.

Methods: DOAC-prescribing physicians within the UK completed both a clinical vignette survey, which contained 12 hypothetical patient profiles designed to replicate DOAC prescribing scenarios, and a physician survey to capture sociodemographic, clinical experience, and prescriber-related beliefs and motivations related to DOAC prescribing. Eight patient factors based on a literature search and an expert consultation process were varied within the vignettes. Associations between the prescribers' dosing choices and patient factors were explored via multilevel logistic regression. The analysis is focused on the most frequently selected DOACs, apixaban and rivaroxaban, both of which have different dosing guidelines.

Results: In all, 336 prescribers (69% male; 233/336) completed the survey, mostly general physicians (GPs) (45%) or cardiology specialists (36%) with a mean of 17.9 years' experience. Most prescribers (73%; 244/336) inappropriately underdosed at least once; rates between GPs and specialists were nearly identical. Patient factors most strongly associated with apixaban inappropriate underdosing included a history of major bleeding and falls. For rivaroxaban, these were major bleeding and severe frailty. Only 32% (106/335) of prescribers reported DOAC dosing guidelines as the sole influence on their prescribing behaviour. Among prescribers who did not inappropriately underdose, greater prescribing confidence was aligned to increased perception of inappropriate underdose risk.

Conclusions: Overall, patient factors such as major bleeding and severe frailty were found to be associated with inappropriate underdosing of apixaban and rivaroxaban. Furthermore, prescribers who were more confident in DOAC prescribing, and were more worried about the risk of stroke, were significantly less likely to inappropriately underdose. These findings suggest that all prescribers, regardless of speciality, may benefit from education and training to raise awareness of the risks associated with inappropriate DOAC underdosing.

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.