The role of general practitioners in the EU: time to draw lessons from a too wide range?

Although the role played by general practitioners (GPs) is historically consolidated, continuous changes have been recently introduced in Europe because of the increasing multimorbidity and complexity of patients. Here we try to compare the roles played by GPs in the four major countries of Europe. In France GPs are self-employed medical doctors, and their remuneration consists of a payment scheme for the services provided. The weekly opening hours of French GPs are on average approximately 48. In Germany primary care is mainly provided by GPs and outpatient internists, and patients are free to choose the facility and the professional. German GPs are self-employed professionals mainly remunerated for each consultation, who work for an average of 50 opening hours per week. In Italy GPs are self-employed professionals mainly paid on per capita basis, who have their own list of patients and must guarantee a minimum number of clinical opening hours per week, which has often become the average number in practice. Accordingly, the patients' weekly access to Italian GPs' clinics is very limited. In Spain GPs are civil servants who work in multifunctional facilities with multi-professional teams. The weekly hours worked by Spanish GPs are 38 hours, as for any other civil servant. Trying to draw positive lessons from the comparison, the Spanish facilities seem to be the most advanced examples of horizontal-integrated organizations able to fulfil the expectations of a growing population of ageing people. The range of generalist professionals could be enlarged beyond GPs, as the German example shows.

[The European mosaic of specialty training programmes in general practice.]

During last decades, general practice has been internationally recognized as an independent and essential medical specialization, with specific skills and tasks. This inevitably created the need to widely implement an organized specialty training programmes to allow future general practitioners to acquire all the skills and knowledge necessary to work within the world of primary care. However, this process has not led to homogeneous applications in European countries, mainly due to the profound and structural differences of each national health system. In our contribution we have tried to make a synoptic comparison of specialty training programmes in general practice in the main European countries (England, Italy, Spain, France and Germany).

Pharmaceutical pricing in Europe: time to take the right direction

A price stems from the intersection between supply and demand curves in any common market. However, there are special markets where consumers do not pay for goods directly, and prescription drugs are a well-known example in healthcare. Drugs are mainly funded by public expenditure in well-established welfare systems like those of the Western European countries. However, the present era of austerity in public funding has made financial resources scarce in most European nations. Currently, the leading tendency for pharmaceutical pricing in Europe is direct negotiation with pharma companies. However, these negotiations are administratively burdensome, with costs not necessarily offsetting savings. Moreover, since any trade negotiation implies some degree of confidentiality to be effective these strategies are scantily transparent. When prices are set for many products through unavoidably arbitrary decisions, the final consequence is an irrational allocation of financial resources. Here, we raise a proposal to restore a reasonable balance between public equity objectives of health authorities and private profit incentives of the pharma industry in Europe, switching from pricing to budgeting. The underlying rationale of our proposal is to stop setting arbitrary prices in a context of market failure.

[The European enigma of pharmaceutical pricing: still solvable?]

The attempt to regulate pharmaceutical pricing has a long tradition in Western European countries and various solutions have been experienced in recent decades to try to control public pharmaceutical spending. Nonetheless, drug prices have become increasingly out of control and unsustainable even in the richest European countries. In a situation of "market failure" such as the pharmaceutical one, in fact, two totally opposite needs collide: the main objective of the health authorities of universal access to essential drugs, versus the aim of the pharmaceutical industry to maximize turnover in order to guarantee high returns on investments. We are therefore convinced that the growing threat of drug prices that are too high must be solved with drastic solutions. The goal of this contribution is therefore to first summarize the current situation of pharmaceutical pricing in Western European countries, then debate the main issues currently discussed and finally propose a radically alternative scenario that moves from prices to the budget.

Integrated care in Western Europe: a wise solution for the future?

INTRODUCTION

IC is a term commonly adopted across the world underpinning a positive attitude against fragmentation of healthcare service provision. While the principles supporting IC are simple, their implementation is more controversial.

AREAS COVERED

The growing number of IC definitions is related to the increasing domains of applications, which reflect the increasing demand induced by aging multi-morbid patients. A comprehensive definition of IC should now include the coordination of health and social services useful to deliver continuous care across organizational boundaries. The recent debate on IC is largely influenced by the mismatch between the increasing burden of health and social needs for chronic conditions from the demand side, and the design of health-care systems still focused on acute care from the supply side.

EXPERT OPINION

The major reasons of persisting IC weakness in European countries stem from arguable choices of health policy taken in the recent past. The political creed in 'market competition' is probably the most emblematic. All initiatives encouraging health-care providers to compete with each other are likely to discourage IC. Since most European GPs are still self-employed professionals working in their own cabinets, the anachronistic professional status of GPs is another historically rooted reason of IC weakness.

[What future for the pharmaceutical patenting in europe: reforming or getting rid of it?]

The covid-19 pandemic and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have once again brought to the fore the issue of patents in the health sector. The current European panorama on the patenting of pharmaceuticals is rather confused and difficult to understand, characterized by a precarious (dis)balance between the commercial incentives guaranteed to the industry by supply-side patents and the regulatory framework in support of public interests on the demand side. Here, we first focus on a regulatory analysis of pharmaceutical patenting and more in general on market exclusivity within the European Union, and then set out some proposals for a radical reform of European legislation. In particular, we believe that there are three major critical issues on the subject that must be addressed and reformed as soon as possible: 1. the management of pharmaceutical patents through the European Patent Office and the parallel network of national offices, 2. the excess of discretion of pharmaceutical companies in the filing of patents and 3. the short duration of market exclusivity on drugs. In fact, the right moment has come to definitively reform the European legislation on pharmaceutical patents in line with the tradition of continental welfare.

Integrated care: easy in theory, harder in practice?

Integrated care (IC) is a term now commonly adopted across the world, which implies a positive attitude towards addressing fragmentation of service provision inside health systems. While the principles of IC are simple, their implementation is more controversial. The ever growing number of IC definitions is related to the increasing domains of applications, which reflect the increasing demand induced by ageing multi-morbid patients. An exhaustive definition of IC should now enclose the coordination of health and social services useful to deliver seamless care across organizational boundaries. The current debate on IC is largely fueled by the modern mismatch between the growing burden of health needs for chronic conditions from the demand side and the design of health systems still largely centered on acute care from the supply side. The major reasons of persisting IC weakness in Western European nations stem from arguable choices of health policy taken in a quite recent past. The political creed in 'market competition' is likely to be the most emblematic. All initiatives encouraging healthcare providers to compete with each other are likely to discourage IC. Another historically rooted reason of IC weakness is the occupational status of European general practitioners (GPs). While single large-scale organizations have become a pressing priority for a modern primary care, most GPs are still selfemployed professionals working in their own cabinets. It is time to reconsider the anachronistic status of GPs so as to enhance IC in the future.

[Integrated care: the right way for the future?]

Integrated Care (IC) is an "umbrella" term, under which numerous definitions are collected, which implies an attempt to coordinate and integrate fragmented and piecemeal health systems with new organizational arrangements. In fact, poor coordination of care is often a major obstacle for patients who access to health services. This adds on concern to the increasing demand for health and the greater proportion of healthcare expenditure induced by aging and chronic multiple comorbidity of patients. IC therefore sets itself the ambitious goal of harmonizing and optimizing patient care, both physical-mental and social, in order to obtain a continuous multi-organizational assistance. Although the principles on which IC is based are intuitive and simple, its extensive application is complicated and difficult to achieve. Within this article, we first try to define the concept of IC through a general review of the scientific literature on the subject. Then, we analyze the main economic and political criticalities of IC. Finally, we try to suggest recommendations about IC that can be extended to the health services of the member countries of the European Union.

Is it too expensive to fight cancer? Analysis of incremental costs and benefits of the Croatian National Plan Against Cancer

This cost-effectiveness study analyses the expected impacts of activities proposed by the Croatian National Plan Against Cancer (NPAC) on cancer incidence and survival rates, as related to their respective costs. We evaluated the impact of the NPAC on two main outcomes, namely, reduced incidence and the improved survival of cancer patients, expressed as life years gained (LYGs), which enabled the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in the form of cost per LYG. In the analysis of costs, we considered both the direct costs of NPAC activities as well as the wider indirect societal costs of cancer, thus permitting the calculation of the ICER both from the narrower national health insurer's perspective (accounting only for the direct costs) and the wider societal perspective (accounting both for the direct and indirect costs). We estimated that on average, for all patients benefiting from the implementation of the NPAC in Croatia, an additional LYG would be yielded at the additional cost of €1.021 (societal perspective). The NPAC can, for some sites, even be considered a dominant intervention due to the negative cost/LYG ratio, meaning that it generates additional LYGs while at the same time, reducing total societal costs. Taking a narrower health insurer's perspective (i.e., accounting only for the direct costs), the NPAC produces an additional LYG at an additional cost of €1.408. Both cost per LYG estimates can be considered cost-effective investment options.

[An instruction manual for reforming Italian general practice.]

General practice occupies a fundamental and irreplaceable role within the Italian National Health System. Despite this, its structural conditions are currently precarious and not up to date. In order to safeguard its existence, a radical reform is therefore necessary distancing itself from the old and obsolete Italian concept of primary care. First of all, it is now mandatory to establish a university specialization in general practice to improve the medical training of future general practitioners. At the same time, the growth of an organized clinical research system in the primary care setting must be encouraged. Together with these measures, an extensive modernization of the organizational system of general practice must be implemented with the overcoming of the current obstacles that largely limit its clinical-assistance possibilities. The creation of primary care centers and the strengthening of the telemedicine system are two essential points of this reform. We deeply trust that future generations of general practitioners will be the promoters of these necessary changes.

Improving primary care in Europe beyond COVID-19: from telemedicine to organizational reforms

The COVID-19 pandemic has put under pressure all the health national systems in Europe and telemedicine (TM) has been an almost unavoidable answer for primary care (PC) services to constrain the contagion. PC includes all the healthcare services that are the first level of contact for individuals. General practitioners (GPs) are the pivotal providers of PC throughout Europe. Although GP costs are mainly covered by public services or social insurances in Europe, they are still self-employed physicians everywhere, differently from their colleagues in hospitals who are traditionally employees. TM is a very general term open to various interpretations and definitions. TM can now be practiced by means of modern audio-visual devices and is an alternative to the traditional face-to-face consultation in general practice. Although the adoption of TM seems to be compelling in our era, its practical dissemination in PC has been quite slow so far, and many different concerns have been raised on it. On the whole, TM widespread adoption in PC seems to be more a matter of labor organization and health care funding than of technology and ethics. Larger-scale organizations comprising a wide range of health professionals have become a pressing priority for a modern PC, because working together is crucial to provide high-quality care to patients, and co-location should boost teamwork and facilitate the management of information technology. A national network of large organizations in PC could be rationally managed through local budgets and should increase efficiency by adopting tools such as TM.

Community and hospital pharmacists in Europe: encroaching on medicine?

Pharmacy has been historically regarded as a discipline between health and chemistry devoted to drug development, production, and compounding. These tasks have been almost lost with the industrial manufacturing, and dispensing remains the main activity of pharmacists. Hospital pharmacists are usually employees in their workplace, while the professional framework of community pharmacists is very different, being pharmacies predominantly private shops in almost all European countries. In the last years pharmacists have strongly advocated that the focus of their services should switch from 'product' to 'patient'. Clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical care are the two most cited concepts to support this shift. Clinical pharmacy was originally defined as the area of pharmacy concerned with the science and practice of rational medication use, pharmaceutical care as the responsible provision of drug therapies to achieve definite outcomes. The practice of clinical pharmacy should embrace the philosophy of pharmaceutical care. The new wave of pharmacists' patient-centered care in Europe still seems to be a reaction against the loss of their traditional professional role after the drug manufacturing revolution. To depict a realistic scenario for progress, it is worth differentiating between hospital and community. Hospital pharmacists should strengthen their pivotal role of medication gatekeepers to improve among clinicians the appropriateness of drug prescriptions and generate savings in expenditures. Any proposal for clinical services provided by community pharmacists is inevitably affected by the issue of their potential remuneration, especially in countries where the remuneration for reimbursable drugs is still a proportion of the retail price.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

Correction to: Defensive medicine in Europe: a 'full circle'?

The Editorial "Defensive medicine in Europe: a 'full circle'?"

Conflicts of interest in medicine: a never-ending story

Individuals may have conflicts of interest (CoI) when they choose between the duties of their jobs and their own private interests. In medicine, CoI are potentially ubiquitous and their disclosure has now become the most frequent strategy to address them in professional lives. In the medical literature, CoI are classified into two different types-financial and non-financial. Financial CoI are easy to identify and can bias any kind of results in research; so, their disclosure is very important. The unsolvable dilemma is where to set the lowest limit for sums received from industry. Non-financial CoI are a very large category intrinsically related to the individuals concerned, ranging from family relationships to religious beliefs, and the mere disclosure of many of them can raise privacy and ethical issues. Two opposite narratives characterize the debate on financial CoI caused by pharmaceutical industry. The critical side argues that, because the primary goal of pharmaceutical industry is inevitably to promote its products, the best strategy is to stay away from financial CoI. On the other hand, the defensive side claims that financial CoI are boosted by ideology but meaningless in real practice, since any kind of interest can raise a potential conflict. A missing point in the debate on financial CoI is that health care is a classical example of 'market failure' in the economic theory. Since health cannot be considered a 'consumer good', the economic paradigm of 'free market' does not fit for healthcare products. To conclude, even though transparency on financial CoI cannot itself deter the risk of bias, rejecting it would be an even bigger mistake. At variance, mandatory disclosure of non-financial CoI risks to be confusing and questionable in many cases, paradoxically distracting attention from the potential bias created by financial CoI.