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]

Introduction: Engaging with patients about their lived experience of health and illness and their experience within the healthcare system can help inform the provision of care, health policies and health research. In the context of health research, however, operationalizing the levels of patient engagement is not straightforward. We suggest that a key challenge to the routine inclusion of patients as partners in health research is a lack of tangible guidance regarding how this can be accomplished. Methods: In this article, we provide guidance on how to codesign and operationalize a concrete patient engagement plan for any health research project. Results: We illustrate a seven‐step approach using the example of a national clinical trial in Canada and provide a patient engagement planning template for use in any health research project. Conclusion: Such concrete guidance should improve the design and reporting of patient engagement in health research. Patient or Public Contribution: The De‐Implementing Wisely Research group is informed by a national 9‐member patient partner council (PPC). The research team includes three lead patient partners who are coinvestigators on the grant that funds the program of research. Members of the council advise on all aspects of the study design and implementation. The ideas presented in this paper were informed by regular communication and planning with the PPC; specific contributions of lead patient partner authors are outlined as follows: Brian Johnston, Susan Goold and Vanessa Francis are patient partners with a wide breadth of experience in the healthcare system and health research projects. The guidance in this article draws on their lived and professional expertise. All patient partner authors contributed to the planning of the manuscript, participated in meetings to develop content and provided critical manuscript edits and comments on drafts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which author discusses several reports published in the periodical related to health promotion including progress and opportunities in making health promotion, health services business and health promoting hospitals.

Background: The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation., Methods, Findings and Interpretation: This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In this article, we present the Canadian Dermatology Association's (CDA) Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) list of top "Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question in Dermatology" and the evidence in support of each recommendation., Methods: Using a nominal technique, the CDA Working Group and Task Force generated an initial list based on literature review and expert consultation. After several rounds of list refinement via a modified Delphi process, a final list of recommendations was generated. These were approved by the CDA Board of Directors, presented at the CDA 93rd Annual Conference in 2018, and published by CWC in 2019., Results: The top five recommendations are as follows: (1) Don't routinely prescribe antibiotics for bilateral lower leg redness and swelling; (2) Don't routinely prescribe topical combination corticosteroid/antifungal products; (3) Don't routinely use topical antibiotics on a surgical wound; (4) Don't prescribe systemic antifungals without mycological confirmation of dermatophyte infection; and (5) Don't use oral antibiotics for acne vulgaris for more than 3 months without assessing efficacy., Discussion: This list of recommendations aims to encourage both physicians and patients to reevaluate ineffective, yet common, practices in treating dermatologic conditions. These recommendations represent actionable changes in practice, and therefore have considerable potential to enhance value-based care in dermatology., Conclusions: This list was developed to identify tangible changes in practice within dermatology that may reduce inefficiencies, prevent potential patient harm, and improve care. Future advocacy work may include updates, feedback obtainment, and patient care handouts, to continue to promote value-based healthcare and best practices.

Objective: Preferences of members of the public are recognized as important inputs into health care priority-setting, though knowledge of such preferences is scant. We sought to generate evidence of public preferences related to healthcare resource allocation among adults and children., Methods: We conducted an experimental stated preference survey in a national sample of Canadian adults. Preferences were elicited across a range of scenarios and scored on a visual analogue scale. Intervention group participants were randomized to a moral reasoning exercise prior to each choice task. The main outcomes were the differences in mean preference scores by group, scenario, and demographics., Results: Our results demonstrate a consistent preference by participants to allocate scarce health system resources to children. Exposure to the moral reasoning exercise weakened but did not eliminate this preference. Younger respondent age and parenthood were associated with greater preference for children. The top principles guiding participants' allocative decisions were treat equally, relieve suffering, and rescue those at risk of dying., Conclusions: Our study affirms the relevance of age in public preferences for the allocation of scarce health care resources, demonstrating a significant preference by participants to allocate healthcare resources to children. However, this preference diminishes when challenged by exposure to a range of moral principles, revealing a strong public endorsement of equality of access. Definitions of value in healthcare based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness may exclude moral considerations that the public values, such as equality and humanitarianism, highlighting opportunities to enrich healthcare priority-setting through public engagement., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The article disputes the myth surrounding activity-based funding (ABF), where hospitals are paid based on care delivered rather than on a yearly lump sum, and it effects on hospital care in Canada. Critics claim that ABF leads to greater for-profit care, closures of rural hospitals and may discourage hospitals to provide high cost but much-needed per unit care. Evidence however show that ABF enhances accountability and transparency, provide more patient benefits, and increase efficiency.