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: There is a scarcity of research published on clinical scholarship. Much of the conceptualisation has been conducted in the academy. Nurse academics espouse that the practice of nursing must be built within a framework of clinical scholarship. A key concept of clinical scholarship emerging from discussions in the literature is that it is an essential component of enabling evidence-based nursing and the development of best practice standards to provide for the needs of patients/clients. However, there is no comprehensive definition of clinical scholarship from the practicing nurses. The aim of this study was to contribute to this definitional discussion on the nature of clinical scholarship in nursing. Methods: Naturalistic inquiry informed the method. Using an interpretative approach 18 practicing nurses from Australia, Canada and England were interviewed using a semi-structured format. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and the text coded for emerging themes. The themes were sorted into categories and the components of clinical scholarship described by the participants compared to the scholarship framework of Boyer [JHEOE 7:5-18, 2010]. Results: Clinical scholarship is difficult to conceptualise. Two of the essential elements of clinical scholarship are vision and passion. The other components of clinical scholarship were building and disseminating nursing knowledge, sharing knowledge, linking academic research to practice and doing practice-based research. Conclusion: Academic scholarship dominated the discourse in nursing. However, in order for nursing to develop and to impact on health care, clinical scholarship needs to be explored and theorised. Nurse educators, hospital-based researchers and health organisations need to work together with academics to achieve this goal. Frameworks of scholarship conceptualised by nurse academics are reflected in the findings of this study with their emphasis on reading and doing research and translating it into nursing practice. This needs to be done in a nonthreatening environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical scholarship has been conceptualised and theorised in the nursing literature for over 30 years but no research has captured nurses' clinicians' views on how it differs or is the same as clinical expertise and clinical leadership. The aim of this study was to determine clinical nurses' understanding of the differences and similarities between the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar. Methods: A descriptive interpretative qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with 18 practising nurses from Australia, Canada and England. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and the text coded for emerging themes. The themes were sorted into categories of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholarship as described by the participants. These themes were then compared and contrasted and the essential elements that characterise the nursing roles of the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar were identified. Results: Clinical experts were seen as linking knowledge to practice with some displaying clinical leadership and scholarship. Clinical leadership is seen as a positional construct with a management emphasis. For the clinical scholar they linked theory and practice and encouraged research and dissemination of knowledge. Conclusion: There are distinct markers for the roles of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar. Nurses working in one or more of these roles need to work together to improve patient care. An 'ideal nurse' may be a blending of all three constructs. As nursing is a practice discipline its scholarship should be predominantly based on clinical scholarship. Nurses need to be encouraged to go beyond their roles as clinical leaders and experts to use their position to challenge and change through the propagation of knowledge to their community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]