Currently viewing the tag: "Risk sharing"
  1. Carapinha, J. (2000) Continuing Professional Development in Human Resource Management. Journal of Modern Pharmacy, 7 (10), 1-6.
  2. Carapinha, J. (2003) Rational Self-Medication within a South African Context. The Journal of Modern Pharmacy, February 2003.
  3. Carapinha, J. (2005) Ethical Decision Making in Managed Health Care. South African Pharmaceutical Journal, 72 (2).
  4. Carapinha, J. (2005) Evidence-Based Pharmacy Practice. South African Pharmaceutical Journal, 72 (4).
  5. Carapinha, J. (2006) The Value of Medicine in Improving the Quality of Care. Journal of South African Family Practice, 2006;48(10):6-10.
  6. Carapinha J. Producing Affordable Medicines in South Africa. In: Cohen JC, Illingworth P, Schuklenk U, editors. The Power of Pills. Maryland: Pluto Books; 2006. 251-259.
  7. Carapinha,  J.  (2008)  Setting the Stage for Risk-Sharing Agreements:  International Experiences and Outcomes-based Reimbursement. Journal of South African Family Practice, 2008;50(4):62-65.
  8. Carapinha,  J.  (2008)  Policy Guidelines for Risk-sharing agreements in South Africa.  Journal of South African Family Practice, 2008;50(5):43-46.
  9. Carapinha, J. (2008) Private pharmacies in an integrated approach to HIV/AIDS services. Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS, 2008 December; 5(4): 206-209.
  10. Carapinha,  J.  (2008)  An  Integrated  Approach  to  HIV/AIDS  Services  in  South  Africa:  Private Pharmacies  and  Policy  Recommendations.  Africa Policy Journal, Spring/Summer 2008 Edition. Volume 4. Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
  11. Carapinha, J. Ross-Degnan, D. Desta, AT. Wagner, A. (2011) Health insurance systems in five Sub-Saharan  African  countries:  medicine  benefits  and  data  for  decision  making.  Health Policy, 2011; 99(3): 193-202.
  12. Carapinha, J. Ross-Degnan, D. Vialle-Valentin, C. Wagner, A. (2012) Gender and treatment for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in LMIC: A systematic review. (In Press)

Valerie Paris provides some insight into the thinking at the OECD  concerning pharmaceutical policy. While Paris promotes the need to standardize HTA across markets, what is overlooked are unique incentives and disincentives at the country-level that may work against a process of standardization. This may range from structural aspects of a health care system, reimbursement mechanisms, ownership of health care facilities, and many other aspects that will reflect in data collected for HTAs. Paris claims there is little known about risk-sharing agreements, but she overlooks a wave of literature that dissects such agreements including the two papers I published in 2008 on this subject, paper 1 and paper 2.

Joao

**************

Leela Barham talks to Valérie Paris of the OECD’s Health Division about how policymakers and pharma firms can achieve better value for money. At a time of considerable financial challenge, options for policy makers to achieve better value for money across the entire health system are much needed. In late 2009, the OECD published options for policy makers, including ensuring efficiency in pharmaceutical expenditure. Despite differences across national health systems, cultures, and the myriad policies affecting pricing and reimbursement, Valérie Paris, from the Health Division of the OECD, says that there are some options that should be explored. Her pharmaceutical policy checklist includes:
* Obtaining value for money while promoting future innovation by considering relative cost-effectiveness in pricing and purchasing decisions, while ensuring that rewards to innovation are consistent with the value of benefits offered;
* Seeking opportunities for establishing price-volume agreements or confidential rebates when value-based unit prices cannot be established (due to risk of parallel trade, for example);
* Exploring the potential for risk-sharing arrangements to reduce the financial risk presented by new medicines when information on costs and effects is insufficient;
* Encouraging generic substitution and price competition in the off-patent market;
* Creating incentives for physicians, pharmacists and patients to promote the appropriate prescribing, dispensing and use of medicines, recognizing that expenditure includes volume/mix as well as price components;
* Considering whether there are opportunities for efficiencies in the distribution chain;
* Ensuring that overall healthcare spending efficiency is not compromised by efforts to improve efficiency of pharmaceutical expenditure.

Source

Health Policy (In Press)

Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers
Josh J. Carlsona, ean D. Sullivana, Louis P. Garrisona, Peter J. Neumannb and David L. Veenstraa

Abstract

Objective
To identify, categorize and examine performance-based health outcomes reimbursement schemes for medical technology.

Methods
We performed a review of performance-based health outcomes reimbursement schemes over the past 10 years (7/98–010/09) using publicly available databases, web and grey literature searches, and input from healthcare reimbursement experts. We developed a taxonomy of scheme types by inductively organizing the schemes identified according to the timing, execution, and health outcomes measured in the schemes.

Results
Our search yielded 34 coverage with evidence development schemes, 10 conditional treatment continuation schemes, and 14 performance-linked reimbursement schemes. The majority of schemes are in Europe and Australia, with an increasing number in Canada and the U.S.

Conclusion
These schemes have the potential to alter the reimbursement and pricing landscape for medical technology, but significant challenges, including high transaction costs and insufficient information systems, may limit their long-term impact. Future studies regarding experiences and outcomes of implemented schemes are necessary.

Tagged with:
 

Carapinha, J. (2008) Setting the Stage for Risk-Sharing Agreements: International Experiences and Outcomes-based Reimbursement. South African Family Practice, 2008;50(4):62-65.

Abstract

Background: Biological medicines are clinically effective but very expensive in South Africa. The business decisions of biological manufacturers and payers (medical schemes) impact the access patient’s have to biological medicines. This paper presents risk-sharing agreements as a means of managing the risk of introducing biological medicines into the healthcare market.

Methods: The paper critically reviews literature of some prominent international experiences with risk-sharing agreements and the nuances associated with such agreements. The paper also critiques the outcomes-based reimbursement of biological medicine and the structural necessities for its successful implementation.

Results: A risk-sharing agreement is a useful tool to manage the risk of introducing clinically effective and very expensive medicines into the healthcare market. It is also a tool that bridges the conflicting priorities of the manufacturer of biological medicine and the payer.

Conclusion: The application of risk-sharing agreements within an international context informs the local discussion. This paper is the first in a two-part series that serves to review the international experience with risk-sharing agreements and critique the outcomes-based reimbursement of biological medicines. The backdrop is set for a discussion of the application of risk-sharing agreements in South Africa, which is the purpose of the second paper in this series.

Carapinha, J. (2008) Policy Guidelines for Risk-sharing agreements in South Africa. South African Family Practice, 2008;50(5):43-46.

Abstract

Background: Biological medicines are clinically effective but very expensive in South Africa. The business decisions of biological manufacturers and payers (medical schemes) impact the access patient’s have to biological medicines. The paper is the second paper of a two part series that explore risk-sharing agreements for biologic medicines. In this paper, the events related to trastuzumab and Discovery Health are presented as a vehicle to explore the application of risk-sharing agreements in South Africa.

Methods: The paper critically reviews the current policy framework and assesses the implications for the manufacturer and the payer. The structural necessities for the outcomes-based reimbursement of biologic medicine are revisited and the paper extracts key lessons and presents these as policy guidelines covering the following four phases: pre-planning phase, planning, implementation and monitoring.

Results: There are numerous policy implications for the manufacturer of biological medicines and the payers (medical schemes). Each implication directly impacts the establishment of risk sharing agreements and inevitably determines the success or failure of such agreements. Two organisations comparable to the NCQA and NICE are required for the successful implementation of outcomes-based reimbursement. The precursors for the development of the such organisations already exist in South African legislation. Risk-sharing agreements have been narrowly conceptualized as a financial risk management tool devoid of clinical and QoL outcomes measurement.

Conclusions: A risk-sharing agreement is a useful tool to manage the risk of introducing clinically effective and very expensive medicines into the healthcare market. Clinical, QoL and financial outcome measures should be integrated into a risk-sharing agreement. A risk-sharing agreement is a tool that bridges the conflicting priorities of the manufacturer of biological medicine and the payer. Moreover, it is a mechanism that mitigates the ethical, social, and political consequences of denying care to patients often confronted with an all-or-nothing situation.

Facebook

YouTube

LinkedId