Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions

OBJECTIVES: Research has shown that effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and severity of illness each play a role in drug reimbursement decisions. However, the role of budget impact in such decisions is less obvious. Policy makers almost always demand a budget impact estimate yet seem reluctant to formally include budget impact as a rationing criterion. Health economists even reject budget impact as a legitimate criterion. For these reasons, it is important to examine its use in rationing decisions, and rationales underlying its use. METHODS: We trace several rationales supporting the use of budget impact through a literature review, supplemented by semistructured interviews with eleven key stakeholders involved in drug reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Budget impact arguments are used in certain instances, although policy makers appear uncomfortable with its use because well described rationales still are lacking. In addition, we identify the following rationales to support budget impact as a rationing criterion: opportunity costs, loss aversion, uncertainty and equal opportunity. CONCLUSIONS: Budget impact plays a role in drug reimbursement decisions and has rationales to support its use. However, policy makers do not easily admit that they consider budget impact and are even reluctant to explicitly use budget impact as a formal criterion. A debate would strengthen the theoretical foundation of budget impact a

Pharmacists in advanced clinical practice roles in emergency departments (PARED)

Background Following evidence published in the Pharmacists in Emergency Departments (PIED 2016) study Health Education England funded novel advanced clinical practitioner training for pharmacists (ACP-p), to support service delivery. Objective To explore experiences and clinical activity of trainee ACP-p, and opinions and recommendations of both trainees and clinical supervisors. Setting Five Urgent/Emergency Care Departments in London UK. Method Longitudinal mixed-methods study in three phases of registered UK pharmacists appointed as trainee ACP-p. Phase 1 (May-July 2019) – early semi-structured interviews and focus group using an experiences, opinions and recommendations (EOR) framework, Phase 2 (January-December 2019) – prospective recording of trainee clinical activity, standardised using bespoke spreadsheet, Phase 3 (November-December 2019) – as Phase 1 but at conclusion of training. Main outcome measure Experiences, clinical activity, opinions and recommendations of study participants. Results Twelve (92 %) eligible trainee ACP-p and five supervisors were recruited. Identified themes were: trainee personality, educational components, length of programme, support/supervision, career transition, university and placement training alignment, recommendations. Success was dependent on effective support and supervision. Clinical supervisors should be allocated adequate supervision time. Trainees, their supervisors and emergency department staff should be given a clear brief. Study participants agreed that the programme could be successful. Trainee ACP-p reported that they could manage 82 % of 713 pre-selected clinical presentations. Additional training needs include: ECGs, X-rays and CT scans. Conclusions Pharmacists can successfully train as ACP-p in this setting over a two-year period. This career transition needs careful management and clear structures. Training ACP-p is a useful way of enhancing skills and supporting clinical services to large numbers of patients

Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches

The process of innovation is inherently complex, and it occurs within an even more complex institutional environment characterized by incomplete information, market power, and externalities. There are therefore different competing approaches to supporting and financing innovation in medical technologies, which bring their own advantages and disadvantages. This article reviews value- and cost-based pricing, as well direct government funding, and cross-cutting institutional structures. It argues that performance-based risk-sharing agreements are likely to have little effect on the sustainability of financing; that there is a role for cost-based pricing models in some situations; and that the push towards longer exclusivity periods is likely contrary to the interests of industry