Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Supplement 2, pp 87–94 | Cite as

Transatlantic Convergence with Respect to the Fourth Hurdle?

  • Joshua Cohen
Review Article

Abstract

There appears to be movement towards convergence between the US and Europe in terms of the objectives of prescription drug cost containment, improvement in and more equitable access to pharmaceuticals, and minimisation of variation in clinical practice. In addition, policymakers in the US and Europe are resorting to the use of similar evidence-based approaches to achieve these policy objectives. However, using the examples of clinical practice guidelines, new drug appraisals for reimbursement, reference pricing and prescription to over-the-counter switching, I illustrate how the development and implementation of such approaches are a function not only of evidence but also of politics. Because all politics is local and differs across countries, and settings within countries, this logically has resulted in instances of divergence in the development and implementation of evidence-based approaches. Evidence improves policy decisions by offering quantitative insight into how well new technologies work, and for whom, but such data do not eliminate vexing trade-offs between the benefits provided and the acceptability of risks and costs incurred to achieve those benefits. Judgments on trade-offs depend in part on the interests and values of stakeholders. And these interests and values help shape how policy makers responsible for drug reimbursement in the US and Europe develop and apply the same types of evidence-based approaches differently.

Keywords

Reference Price Pharmaceutical Care Coverage Decision Reference Price System Reimbursement Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Reinhardt U, Hussey P, Anderson G. US health care spending in an international context. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23(3): 10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Towse A. The efficient use of pharmaceuticals: does Europe have any lessons for a Medicare drug benefit? Health Aff (Millwood) 2003; 22(3): 42–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gelijns A, Brown L, Magnell C, et al. Evidence, politics, and technological change. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24(1): 29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Docteur E, Oxley H. Health care systems: lessons from the reform experience. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2003 working paper no. 9. Paris: OECD, 2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CMS urges states to adopt disease management programs, agency will match state costs [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/media/press/release.asp?Counter=967 [Accessed 13 Sep 2005]
  6. 6.
    Felder S. Disease management programmes in Germany: a fundamental fault. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 Suppl 2:55–57.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OECD Health Data 2002. Paris: OECD, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clancy C, Cronin K. Evidence-based decision-making: global evidence, local decisions. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24(1): 151–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    NICE or nasty? Available from: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/NICE.pdf 2003 [Accessed 13 Sep 2005]
  10. 10.
    Cohen J. Are clinical practice guidelines impartial. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(4): 415–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    NICE home page [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk [Accessed 13 Sep 2005]
  12. 12.
    Durand-Zaleski I, Colin C, Blum-Boisgard C. An attempt to save money using mandatory practice guidelines in France. BMJ 1997; 315: 943–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen J, Grijseels E, van Willigenburg T. Normative considerations underlying priority setting in Dutch clinical practice. The Hague: Nederlandse Stichting voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), 2005Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen J. Cost issues increasingly drive US formulary and clinical guidelines. Tufts CSDD Impact Report 2004; 6(5)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Furniss J. Price controls in France: budgeting for medical benefit. EuroHealth 2001; 7(2): 9–10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koopmanschap M, Rutten F. The drug budget silo mentality: the Dutch case. Value in Health 2003; 6(1): S46–S51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neumann P. Why don’t Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis? Am J Manag Care 2004; 10: 308–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Q&A with Bryan Luce [online]. Available from URL: http://www.unitedbiosource.com/pdfs/PE8-35-05e.pdf [Accessed 12 Sep 2005]
  19. 19.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare coverage database: national coverage determinations (NCDs) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/index_list.asp?list_type=ncd [Accessed 1 Sep 2005]
  20. 20.
    Garber A. Cost-effectiveness and evidence evaluation as criteria for coverage policy. Health Affairs 2004; web exclusive: W4-284-96 [online]. Available from URL: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.w4.284v1 [Accessed 1 Sep 2005]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Danzon P. Reference pricing: theory and evidence. 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://hc.wharton.upenn.edu/danzon/PDF%20Files/barcelonaEditfinal%20.pdf [Accessed 4 Aug 2005]
  22. 22.
    Kanavos P, Reinhardt U. Reference pricing for drugs: is it compatible with US health care? Health Affairs (Millwood) 2003; 22(3): 16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Some insurers employing reference prices to reduce prescription drug spending [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_hpolicy_rece nt_rep.cfm?dr_cat=3&show=yes&dr_DateTime=03-22-04#22804 [Accessed 18 May 2006]
  24. 24.
    Cohen J. Switching omeprazole in Sweden and the United States. Am J Ther 2003; 10: 370–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    World Self-Medication Industry home page [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wsmi.org [Accessed 21 Oct 2005]
  26. 26.
    Cohen J, DiMasi J. Modeling a switch of loratadine from prescription to over-the-counter status. J Res Pharmaceut Econ 2001; 11(3): 43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen J, Paquette C, Cairns C. Switching prescription drugs to over-the-counter. BMJ 2005; 330: 39–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    British Medical Association; Board of Science. Over-the-counter medication [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/OTC0505/$FILE/OTC0505.pdf [Accessed 18 May 2006]
  29. 29.
    Ham C. Health care reform: learning from international experience. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1997Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tufts Center for the Study of Drugs DevelopmentBostonUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations