Will Translational Science Help Reduce Costs of Illness?

The purpose of this commentary is to (1) review the definition and potential benefits of translational science research, (2) comment on funding trends for translational science, (3) pose a question for scientists to discuss, and (4) propose recommendations for such a discussion. Type: Commentar

Will a Fixed Price Reimbursement Policy for Statins be Cost-Effective for Turkey's Health Care System?

Type: Commentar

Analysis of Market Access Agreements in Turkey

BACKGROUND: Reimbursement agencies are increasingly adopting innovative reimbursement approaches for new and expensive technologies. Social Security Institution (SSI), Turkey`s reimbursement agency, established the Alternative Reimbursement Commission (ARC) on February 10, 2016. This study aimed to understand the implementations of market access agreements in recent years in Turkey.METHODS: Decisions of the Health Services Pricing Commission published in the official gazette , and information from the Turkey Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, the Abroad Drug List, Health Implementation Communique published by SSI with additional lists, such as the Annex-4A List of Reimbursed Medicines and the Annex-4C Abroad Drug Price List, were used. The data was transferred to Windows Office Excel files, and a descriptive analysis was conducted and evaluated by two market access experts.RESULTS: There were 57 drugs included in the coverage of reimbursement with alternative reimbursement since the application was started in Turkey. 35 of them were added to Annex-4A and 22 of them to Annex-4C. Furthermore, 45.6% of the drugs had an Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) code of l-antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents, 28% were orphan drugs, 44 of them had a confidential discount rate, and financial-based agreement models were preferred for nearly all agreements.CONCLUSIONS: Turkey has been implementing market access agreements since mid-2016. In the past 3 years, 57 drugs have been covered for reimbursement under the new implementation. Further analysis should be conducted to understand the decision-making process involved

Treatment cost of metastatic colon cancer in Turkey

OBJECTIVES: Colon cancer is the third most common in the top cancer incidence list in Europe. In Europe 212,000 patients die every year due to colon cancer. In Turkey 120,000-130,000 new cancer patients are diagnosed every year, 7.1% of whom are diagnosed to have developed colon cancer. Metastases will occur in up to 50% of the patients who are newly diagnosed. Survival appears to be further prolonged to more than 20 months with new pharmaceuticals; however, these new pharmaceuticals increase the total cost of care. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost implications of new colon cancer treatment options for Turkey.METHODS: Gazi University Hospital treatment protocols for colon cancer treatment were used. Cost of FUFA (5 FU/LV), FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, bevacizumab/FUFA, bevacizumab/FOLFIRI, bevacizumab/FOLFOX, irinotecan and irinotecan/cetixumab protocols were calculated. The cost of combination of protocols were calculated depending on a Markov analysis. The exchange rate was US$1 for TL 1.5.RESULTS: Depending on the life expectancy the lowest total cost was established by FUVA (US$ 5,359). It was followed by FOLFIRI then FOLFOX and FOLFOX, US$14,144 and US$ 16,553, respectively. The lowest cost for each week of life expectancy was established by FUVA with US$ 98.CONCLUSIONS: Only FUFA, FOLFIRI followed by FOLFIX, FOLFIRI/bevacizumab then FOLFOX then cetuximab, FOLFOX/bevacizumab then irinotecan then cetuximab/irinotecan and FOLFIRI/bevacizumab then FOLFOX then cetuximab/irinotecan were under the cost effectiveness curve. In addition no treatments ICER was under the WHO`s threshold for Turkey, except FOLFIRI then FOLFOX compared with FUVA

Results of reference pricing and reimbursement discount rate schemes of Turkey

OBJECTIVES: General Directorate of Pharmaceuticals and Pharmacy (IEGM) is responsible for setting all prices for human medicinal products. The reference pricing system is used for setting these prices. Reference countries are reviewed annually and may be subject to certain alterations. There were 5 reference countries in 2009: Spain, Italy, Germany, France and Greece. The aim of this study is to show the distribution of reference countries which were used for reference pricing.METHODS: The price list of pharmaceuticals which was published by IEGM on 15.04.2011 was used for analysis. Distribution of reference countries and prices were evaluated.RESULTS: Prices of 6,251 generic and 3,703 original products were set according to the price list. 5,283 of generics and 3,306 of originals were in the positive list for reimbursement. Reference pricing was used for 2,352 generics and 2,281 originals. Prices of the remaining were set outside of reference pricing. 32 different countries were used for reference pricing. Italy was the most popular country for reference pricing. Even if it was not a reference country, Germany was used in some of the pharmaceuticals. The average reimbursement discount rate and price were 24.43% and 249 TL, respectively. There were no colerations between price and reimbursement discount rate, or reference country and reimbursement rate.CONCLUSION: It has been shown that Italy has the highest impact on the pricing of all pharmaceuticals in Turkey. Even if it was not a reference country, Germany showed to affect pharmaceuticals more than other countries which were also not used for reference pricing. Even if reimbursement discount rates are stated by the Social Security Institution (SGK), there are different discount rates for pharmaceuticals. The analysis stated that there were correlation between price, country and discount rates. This analysis is first for the literature. Further analysis is necessary in the light of price changes and newly launched pharmaceuticals

Will Translational Science Help Reduce Costs of Illness?

The purpose of this commentary is to (1) review the definition and potential benefits of translational science research, (2) comment on funding trends for translational science, (3) pose a question for scientists to discuss, and (4) propose recommendations for such a discussion. Type: Commentar