Financial Burden of Prescribed Medicines Included in Outpatient Benefits Package Schemes: Comparative Analysis of Co-Payments for Reimbursable Medicines in European Countries

Financial burden of medicines in five Northern European countries: A decommodification perspective

Affordable access to healthcare including medicines is a key social policy goal in Europe. However, it has rarely been addressed in comparative social policy research. Although the concept of decommodification has already been used in the context of healthcare and sickness benefits, we argue that the scope of such studies should be expanded to medicines to understand how welfare states protect their citizens from market forces in case of illness. We examine and compare the relationship between income, other characteristics, and subjective financial burden of medicines (FBM) across five countries with universal health systems pursuing egalitarian aims (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden). Analyses using 2017 EU-SILC microdata and linear probability models showed large differences in the level of FBM across countries, with the highest income quintile in Finland reporting FBM more frequently than the lowest income quintile in Denmark. Finland differed from the rest by increasing probability of FBM with age. In other countries, middle-aged adults tended to be the most affected, and older adults were well-protected. The association between income and FBM was strongest in the Netherlands; however, the higher probability of FBM was skewed towards the lower quintiles in all countries. FBM and financial burden of medical care were strongly associated although FBM tended to be more common. Unmet needs for medical examination were rare and lacked sensitivity in capturing manifestations of market risk. Decommodification literature has focused healthcare services as proxy of access; nevertheless, our study shows that further functions, and broader outcomes should be examined to capture market risk. Our evidence further highlights that important differences can be found even in countries with relatively similar health policy aims. The cost of medicines should be considered in comparative studies of health and welfare states.

The role of insurance policies in the drug pricing landscape

INTRODUCTION

This overview paper aims at summarizing and analyzing the available literature on healthcare system organization and pricing policies of 11 European countries, comparing them to the Bulgarian pharmaceutical system. The countries were selected based on the reference basket for the pricing of pharmaceuticals in Bulgaria - Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and France.

AREAS COVERED

In the first part, we explore the health system models in the above-mentioned countries. In the second part we explore the pricing and reimbursement policies, and in the third part we analyze healthcare and pharmaceutical economic indicators, as well as life expectancy. The major focus of the review is the outpatient care.

EXPERT OPINION

In this work, we attempted to outline differences and similarities between the countries of interest. Despite the differences in their healthcare system organization, health and pharmaceutical expenditures constantly increased during the observed 2 decades. This increase in expenditures, however, has not had a significant impact on life-expectancy. Minor increases were observed - from 2 to 4 years total. No country had an expectancy above 85 years of age. It might be said that other factors are influencing the life expectancy to a greater extent.

Economic evaluation of biological treatments in patients with severe asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a highly prevalent disease, one of the chronic diseases with the highest economic costs; thus, it imposes a high economic burden on society, the healthcare system, patients, and third-party payers. Contrary to this study, until now, systematic reviews of economic evaluations (EEs) of treatments for severe asthma have not been exclusively focused on biological treatments, and have included a small number of studies and only model-based EEs.

METHODS

This study systematically reviews EEs of biological therapies for severe asthma published until December 2022 using PRISMA guidelines. The review analyzes the cost-effectiveness of biologicals in comparison to SOC, or SOC plus OCS. The quality of the EEs is assessed using Consensus on Health Economics Checklist extended (CHEC-extended).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were eligible: 15 based on a Markov model, and 19 trial-based; eight adopting societal and NHS perspectives, and seven the payer's perspective. The reviewed EEs addressed cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and incremental costs and outcomes comparison. Their findings were mainly expressed through ICER-incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (24 studies: 13 concluded that biological were cost-effective) and cost comparison analysis (14 studies: 6 concluded that biological were cost-effective), and were sensitive to a wide variety of factors (e.g. medication cost, treatment response, time horizon, utility benefits, mortality, exacerbation rate, discount rate, etc.).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been some ambiguity concerning the EE of biological therapies due to variation in choice of study design and contradictory results. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that biological treatments improve health outcomes, in many contexts at a high cost.

Exploring the effectiveness of demand-side retail pharmaceutical expenditure reforms : Cross-country evidence from weighted-average least squares estimation

Increasing expenditures on retail pharmaceuticals bring a critical challenge to the financial stability of healthcare systems worldwide. Policy makers have reacted by introducing a range of measures to control the growth of public pharmaceutical expenditure (PPE). Using panel data on European and non-European OECD member countries from 1990 to 2015, we evaluate the effectiveness of six types of demand-side expenditure control measures including physician-level behaviour measures, system-level price-control measures and substitution measures, alongside a proxy for cost-sharing and add a new dimension to the existing empirical evidence hitherto based on national-level and meta-studies. We use the weighted-average least squares regression framework adapted for estimation with panel-corrected standard errors. Our empirical analysis suggests that direct patient cost-sharing and some-but not all-demand-side measures successfully dampened PPE growth in the past. Cost-sharing schemes stand out as a powerful mechanism to curb PPE growth, but bear a high risk of adverse effects. Other demand-side measures are more limited in effect, though may be more equitable. Due to limitations inherent in the study approach and the data, the results are only explorative.

The effect of pharmaceutical co-payment increase on the use of social assistance-A natural experiment study

Health care out-of-pocket payments can create barriers to access or lead to financial distress. Out-of-pocket expenditure is often driven by outpatient pharmaceuticals. In this nationwide register study, we study the causal relationship between an increase in patients' pharmaceutical expenses and financial difficulties by exploiting a natural experiment design arising from a 2017 reform, which introduced higher co-payments for type 2 diabetes medicines in Finland. With difference-in-differences estimation, we analyze whether the reform increased the use of social assistance, a last-resort financial aid. We found that after the reform the share of social assistance recipients increased more among type 2 diabetes patients than among a patient group not affected by the co-payment increase, suggesting the reform increased the use of social assistance among those subject to it. The results indicate that increases in patients' pharmaceutical expenses can lead to serious financial difficulties even in countries with a comprehensive social security system.

Identifying Key Benefits in European Off-Patent Biologics and Biosimilar Markets: It is Not Only About Price!

Biosimilar medicines have shown similarity with the originator biologic and offer a similar clinical outcome generally at a lower cost. This paper identifies benefits of off-patent biologics and biosimilars, and illustrates these benefits with empirical data from Europe. We provide a narrative review of published literature on values and benefits of biosimilars in Europe. The results describe cost savings as the key driver stemming from the lower price of biosimilars, than that of originator products, and from price competition between biosimilar(s), originator, and next-generation products. Cost savings may then translate into a number of other associated benefits. The lower price of biosimilars and similar effectiveness to the originator biologics improve cost effectiveness, implying that reimbursement can be granted or extended to other patient groups, or that the biologic therapy can be moved to an earlier line of treatment. Cost savings from biosimilars can be used to increase patient access to therapy or to increase the number of healthcare professionals. Finally, competition between off-patent biologics and biosimilars may stimulate an innovation in the formulation and development of next-generation biologics. Our paper illustrates that the benefit of off-patent biologics and biosimilars is not restricted to cost savings, but that these medicines may contribute to an expansion of medical treatment options for patients, hence concomitantly contributing to the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system. This review provides a broader view for clinical and economic decision makers and healthcare professionals on the added benefits of off-patent biologics and their use in clinical practice.