Search

Background Generic drugs have been seen as a potentially powerful way to alleviate the financial burden on patients and health care systems. Two strategies for achieving rational prices of generic drugs are tiered pricing framework and pooled purchasing power. We compare the pan-Canadian Tiered Pricing Framework (TPF) and the Chinese National Volume-Based Procurement (NVBP) as comparators to explore the similarities and differences between the two mechanisms and summarise lessons for other jurisdictions. Methods This comparative study applies Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework to systematically analyse the macro contexts, procedures, and long- and short-term results of each pricing mechanism, and the interactions between them. Results Structure: TPF is an upstream initiative aimed at lowering the prices of generic drugs and increasing coverage and price consistency. NVBP is a downstream national initiative prioritised for reducing drug prices to achieve value-based purchasing. Process: By associating the number of manufacturers with price cuts, TPF leaves the choice to manufacturers to decide if they want to enter a specific market. In contrast, the Chinese government determines NVBP list and has the authority to choose manufacturer(s) with the lowest price(s). TPF provides clear price information to potential suppliers with unclear order quantity. The NVBP drug price is determined by tendering, while procurement volume is clear and massive. Outcome: The effectiveness of TPF and NVBP is similar, with both achieving a 53% price cut. Both TPF and NVBP experienced efficiency improvement since their establishment, with 98 and 86 drugs priced per year. By comparing 60 drugs covered by both programmes, the NVBP price is 57% of that of the TPF counterpart on average (1.1 to 301.6%), by purchase power parity. Conclusions The tiered pricing scheme is feasible in regions with a stable and mature pharmaceutical market, typically seen in high-income countries, while tendering is more workable in low- and middle-income countries where the pharmaceutical market is weak and unstable. Experience in the two countries shows that a coordinated pricing mechanism involves many piecemeal interactive problems, which a sophisticated system with a robust long-range plan may address better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To solve complex health issues, an innovative and multidisciplinary framework is necessary. The Clinical Public Health (CPH) Division was established at the University of Toronto (UofT), Canada to foster inte-gration of primary care, preventive medicine and public health in education, practice and research. To better understand how the construct of CPH might be applied, we surveyed clinicians, researchers and public health professionals affiliated with the CPH Division to assess their understanding of the CPH concept and its utility in fostering broad collaboration.Methods: A two-wave anonymous survey of the active faculty of the CPH Division, UofT was conducted across Canada. Wave 1 participants (n = 187; 2016) were asked to define CPH, while Wave 2 participants (n = 192; 2017) were provided a synthesis of Wave 1 results and asked to rank each definition. Both waves were asked about the need for a common definition, and to comment on CPH.Results: Response rates for the first and second waves were 25% and 22%, respectively. Of the six definitions of CPH from Wave 1, "the intersection of clinical practice and public health," was most highly ranked by Wave 2 participants. Positive perceptions of CPH included multidisciplinary collaboration, new fields and insights, forward thinking and innovation. Negative perceptions included CPH being a confusing term, too narrow in scope or too clinical.Conclusion: The concept of Clinical Public Health can foster multidisciplinary collaboration to address com-plex health issues because it provides a useful framework for bringing together key disciplines and diverse professional specialties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]