Biomedical subjects

Werner B F Brouwer

Publications and source records attributed to Werner B F Brouwer.

22 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2003

The missing link: on the line between C and E.

In this paper it is argued that the separation of elements associated with the time spent by the patient is not conducted in a consistent way. This is the case for income (for which there at least has been some attention) and for other time elements like lost unpaid work, leisure and role-functioning. The use of general rather than specific preferences in health state assessments makes the separation of time-elements into costs and effects difficult. While costs are calculated specifically for the patient group under study, effects are normally derived from preferences in the general public. The characteristics of these two groups in terms of (the opportunity of) spending time on activities need not coincide. The use of specific time-group valuations of health states may be a good alternative to using general health state valuations.

Absenteeism↗

PubMed2002

Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra.

Although the cost-effectiveness of Viagra for the treatment of patients with erectile dysfunction is favourable, both public and political opinions seem to be inclined not to fund, or merely to partially fund (i.e. by reimbursing only specific patient groups) this medicine. This shows that in funding discussions, cost-effectiveness information is not solely decisive. In a theoretical framework for choices in health care that was developed in The Netherlands (the Dunning report, 1991), two other criteria besides cost-effectiveness were put forward as being important for rationing decisions: "necessary care" and "individual responsibility". Overlooking the Viagra discussion, many of the arguments put forward seemed to be related to these two criteria. However, a clear operationalisation of the criteria necessary care and individual responsibility is lacking, which makes it difficult to use the arguments in funding decisions. In this paper, we try to demonstrate how these criteria were presented in the Viagra discussion and we will indicate how these criteria can be operationalised in relation to the outcomes of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Regulating the Dutch pharmaceutical market: improving efficiency or controlling costs?

In this paper, we describe the Dutch pharmaceutical market, which is heavily regulated by the government. Through the regulation of prices and promoting prudent use, the Dutch government tries to bring down the cost of pharmaceuticals, which increases every year at a higher rate than total health care expenditure. The complex system of regulation, especially aimed at cost containment, is not very effective, particularly with respect to controlling outpatient pharmaceutical expenditure. Moreover, the system has few incentives towards efficiency. Though the market share of generic pharmaceuticals is rapidly growing, pharmaceutical expenditure has not decreased accordingly. The discounts offered by wholesalers of generic products to pharmacists produce private rather than societal gains from generic prescriptions. Dismantling the current regulatory system, boosting competition and efficiency with insurers in a leading role, seems to be the way forward.

Cost Control↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar--or is it?

It is normally stated that an economic evaluation should take the societal perspective and that this implies the incorporation of all costs and effects, regardless of where these occur. Nevertheless, this broad perspective may be in conflict with the narrower perspective of the health-care decision-makers we are usually trying to aid. In this article, it is argued that not all costs have to be considered equally important for health-care decision-making and that there is a discrepancy between the economically preferred societal perspective and the aim of aiding health-care decision-makers. This is related to the concept of local rationality. Three reasons why some costs may be considered more important for health-care decision-makers than others are: 1) relevance; 2) equity; and 3) responsibility. We suggest that it may be useful to adopt a two-perspective approach as a standard, presenting one cost-effectiveness ratio following a strict health-care perspective and one following the common societal perspective. The health-care perspective may assist the health-care policymaker better in achieving health-care goals, while the societal perspective indicates whether the local rationality of the narrow health-care perspective is also in line with societal optimality. More research on actual decisions should provide more insight into the relative weights attached to different types of costs.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗