Search

Introduction: Drug reimbursement decisions are often made based on a price set by the manufacturer. In some cases, this price leads to public and scientific debates about whether its level can be justified in relation to its costs, including those related to research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Such considerations could enter the decision process in collectively financed health care systems. This paper investigates whether manufacturers' costs in relation to drug prices, or profit margins, are explicitly mentioned and considered by health technology assessment (HTA) organisations. Method: An analysis of reimbursement reports for cancer drugs was performed. All relevant Dutch HTA-reports, published between 2017 and 2019, were selected and matched with HTA-reports from three other jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia). Information was extracted. Additionally, reimbursement reports for three cases of expensive non-oncolytic orphan drugs prominent in pricing debates in the Netherlands were investigated in depth to examine consideration of profit margins. Results: A total of 66 HTA-reports concerning 15 cancer drugs were included. None of these reports contained information on manufacturer's costs or profit margins. Some reports contained general considerations of the HTA organisation which related prices to manufacturers' costs: six contained a statement on the lack of price setting transparency, one mentioned recouping R&D costs as a potential argument to justify a high price. For the case studies, 21 HTA-reports were selected. One contained a cost-based price justification provided by the manufacturer. None of the other reports contained information on manufacturer's costs or profit margins. Six reports contained a discussion about lack of transparency. Reports from two jurisdictions contained invitations to justify high prices by demonstrating high costs. Conclusion: Despite the attention given to manufacturers' costs in relation to price in public debates and in the literature, this issue does not seem to get explicit systematic consideration in the reimbursement reports of expensive drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking.Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care.Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services.Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Achieving people-centred health care systems requires new and innovative strategies to capture information about whether, and to what degree, health care is successful in improving health from the perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can bring some of these new insights, and are increasingly used in research, clinical care, and policymaking.Methods: This paper reflects the ongoing discussions and findings of the OECD PaRIS Working Group on Patient-reported Indicators for Mental Health Care.Results: The OECD has been measuring quality of care for mental health conditions over the last 14 years through the Health Care Quality and Outcomes (HCQO) program; nonetheless, information on how persons with mental health problems value the services they receive, and impact of the services, remains limited. As of 2018, a survey from the OECD showed that only five of the twelve countries surveyed (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom) reported PROMs and PREMs collection on a regular basis in mental health settings. The paper details some of the challenges specific to the collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in mental health care, and examples from countries which have implemented comprehensive programmes to gather information about PROMs and PREMs for individuals receiving mental health services.Conclusions: Given the health and economic impact of mental ill-health across all OECD countries, there is significant value to being able to assess the quality and outcomes of care in this area using internationally-comparable measures. Continued international harmonisation of PROMs and PREMs for mental health through international coordination is a key way to facilitate the sharing of national experiences, promote the use of PROMs and PREMs, and create meaningful indicators for national and international benchmarking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil organic carbon (SOC) is essential for most soil functions. Changes in land use from natural land to cropland disrupt long-established SOC balances and reduce SOC levels. The intensive use of chemical fertilisers in modern agriculture accelerates the rate of SOC depletion. Domestic organic residues (DOR) are a valuable source of SOC replenishment with high carbon content. However, there is still a lack of knowledge and data regarding whether and to what extent DOR can contribute to replenishing SOC. This paper aims to unpack the potential of DOR as a SOC source. Total SOC demand and annual SOC loss are defined and calculated. The carbon flow within different DOR management systems is investigated in three countries (China, Australia, and The Netherlands). The results show that the total SOC demand is too large to be fulfilled by DOR in a short time. However, DOR still has a high potential as a source of SOC as it can mitigate the annual SOC loss by up to 100%. Achieving this 100% mitigation requires a shift to more circular management of DOR, in particular, more composting, and direct land application instead of landfilling and incineration (Australia and China), or a higher rate of source separation of DOR (The Netherlands). These findings form the basis for future research on DOR recycling as a SOC source. [Display omitted] • Carbon in domestic organic residues is not enough to replenish carbon in soils. • More than half of domestic organic residues are not recycled to soils. • In China and Australia, landfill is the main cause of carbon loss in the system. • In the Netherlands, incineration causes the major carbon losses. • Transition to composting of organic residues could mitigate soil carbon loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient safety in primary care is an emerging field of research with a growing evidence base in western countries but little has been explored in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC) including the Sultanate of Oman. This study aimed to review the literature on the safety culture and patient safety measures used globally to inform the development of safety culture among health care workers in primary care with a particular focus on the Middle East. Methods: A systematic review of the literature. Searches were undertaken using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from the year 2000 to 2014. Terms defining safety culture were combined with terms identifying patient safety and primary care. Results: The database searches identified 3072 papers that were screened for inclusion in the review. After the screening and verification, data were extracted from 28 papers that described safety culture in primary care. The global distribution of the articles is as follows: the Netherlands (7), the United States (5), Germany (4), the United Kingdom (1), Australia, Canada and Brazil (two for each country), and with one each from Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The characteristics of the included studies were grouped under the following themes: safety culture in primary care, incident reporting, safety climate and adverse events. The most common theme from 2011 onwards was the assessment of safety culture in primary care (13 studies, 46%). The most commonly used safety culture assessment tool is the Hospital survey on patient safety culture (HSOPSC) which has been used in developing countries in the Middle East. Conclusions: This systematic review reveals that the most important first step is the assessment of safety culture in primary care which will provide a basic understanding to safety-related perceptions of health care providers. The HSOPSC has been commonly used in Kuwait, Turkey, and Iran. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice.Methods: The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt.Results: Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions.Conclusions: Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]