7. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2014;158:A7129.
[The new pharmacovigilance legislation in practice].
[Article in Dutch]
Broekmans AW(1), Mol PG.
Author information:
(1)Vinkel.
Recent European legislation has provided new tools to enhance the overseeing of
medicinal products in the postmarketing phase. Package leaflets of newly approved
medicines contain a black inverted triangle as a signal for enhanced monitoring.
The leaflets also have clear instructions on how to report possible adverse drug
reactions. Databases of drug reactions are accessible by the public. The most
important change is the establishment of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment
Committee (PRAC) within the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This Committee will
review safety signals of medicinal products arising in the member states of the
European Union. The Committee could recommend adaptation of the package leaflet,
or suspension or revocation of the marketing authorisation. The PRAC is also
involved in the assessment of risk management plans for medicinal products and
post-authorisation efficacy and safety studies.
PMID: 24846112 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;196:i-xix.
Front matter.
[No authors listed]
Since 1992, the NextMed/MMVR conference has gathered researchers who create tools
that improve medical care and education. Engineers, clinicians, scientists,
educators, industry, military, and students come to share, learn, evaluate, and
nurture progress. Their mission is to improve healthcare outcomes and efficiency
through computing and networking technologies-products of the IT industry. These
researchers also participate in the healthcare crisis that the United States and,
to a lesser extent, other developed countries now face: how to meet the public's
high expectations of care when costs are precariously high. Multiple factors have
elevated these expectations. Baby Boomers are entering retirement after a
lifetime of viewing ads that promise them "golden years" invigorated by science.
Competition for affluent patients means hospital ads never admit a tacit truth:
"Yes, our experienced doctors treat people with fancy machines, but some still
die or never improve". The media glowingly report on patients saved by dedicated
physicians, and people believe they can buy miracles with sufficient talent and
technology. Meanwhile, a convoluted reimbursement system obscures the true cost
of care, individually and collectively. The cost of care is steadily increasing,
too. In the United States, the chronically ill of all ages-five percent of the
population-consume half of all healthcare spending. Many of these patients suffer
from lifestyle diseases that proliferate in synch with modernization. Aging
Boomers will exacerbate this increase as they approach the inevitable during the
next decade or so. Granted, human nature compels us to fight illness by any means
possible-without weighing the financial toll beforehand. (If a TV medical drama
included accountants in the ER who tabulated invoices while doctors saved lives,
it would morph into a dark comedy that's not too far from reality.) However, when
we extend lives with innovative therapies but don't completely heal, the economic
burden can accumulate impressively. And unfortunately, the American public's
return on investment-healthier lives per dollars spent-is poor. Again, several
factors are at play. Opaque and monopolistic healthcare pricing obstructs
comparison between providers, so inefficiencies stand uncorrected. In addition,
the insurance industry takes a large cut of healthcare spending without actually
providing any care. Furthermore, American culture tends to underrate prevention,
but value dramatic interventions. (How many cardiac stents and insulin pumps
could we eliminate with better dietary education?) And when the public expresses
discontent and asks the government to improve the current system, the methods to
effect change become stubbornly politicized. Naturally, players already making a
lot of money protect their advantage; political expediency influences how
healthcare profits remain private and losses become socialized. Caregivers,
hospitals, drugs, and devices are limited and valuable resources that merit
significant investment. In order to protect these resources and improve our
investment, though, we need to resolve the key issue at hand: how much more can
the public pay for care without damaging the rest of the economy? Clearly, we
require greater efficiency. Scientists and engineers also form part of the
relationship between healthcare invention, patient expectations, and increasing
expenditure. They tackle healthcare problems focusing chiefly on scientific
solutions. But science is also a business, so following successful discovery and
regulatory approval, corporations must recoup R&D and fund future research.
Their aggressive marketing of new products maximizes sales, and pricing reflects
what the market will bear, yet FDA approval doesn't guarantee that a new therapy
is the most cost-effective option available. Return on investment-from the
public's standpoint-appears to be an afterthought. Although the technologies
shared at NextMed/MMVR capitalize on the increasing capabilities and decreasing
costs pioneered by the IT industry, researchers can further help patients by
aiming for not just a cure, but a cure patients can afford. No one wants to
dampen ingenuity, but could researchers take into account the future
costcompetitiveness of the investigated solution? Can engineers and scientists,
for example, collaborate with healthcare providers (including those ER
accountants tabulating in the background) to understand what patients need,
clinically and economically? Can their differing perspectives reduce misguided
efforts and improve the economic viability of the cure? At NextMed/MMVR, we
believe they can. In fact, interdisciplinary collaboration has been a conference
objective since 1992, and it remains as important as ever. To the many
researchers who contributed papers for this volume, thank you for the tremendous
effort and ingenuity you have invested in improving healthcare, and for
presenting your work at this conference. Acknowledgment Many thanks to Dr.
Patrick Cregan, a member of the NextMed/MMVR Organizing Committee, for sharing
his enthusiasm for healthcare economics and some useful references on the topic.
James D. Westwood Aligned Management Associates, Inc.
PMID: 24732563 [PubMed - in process]
9. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Nov 11;173(20):1907-13. doi:
10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10063.
Effect of a multipayer patient-centered medical home on health care utilization
and quality: the Rhode Island chronic care sustainability initiative pilot
program.
Rosenthal MB(1), Friedberg MW, Singer SJ, Eastman D, Li Z, Schneider EC.
Author information:
(1)Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Comment in
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jun;174(6):1008.
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Nov 11;173(20):1913-4.
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jun;174(6):1008-9.
IMPORTANCE: The patient-centered medical home is advocated to reduce health care
costs and improve the quality of care.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the pilot program of a multipayer
patient-centered medical home on health care utilization and quality.
DESIGN: An interrupted time series design with propensity score-matched
comparison practices, including multipayer claims data from 2 years before
(October 1, 2006-September 30, 2008) and 2 years after (October 1, 2008-September
30, 2010) the launch of the pilot program. Uptake of the intervention was
measured with audit data from the National Committee for Quality Assurance
patient-centered medical home recognition process. SETTING Five independent
primary care practices and 3 private insurers in the Rhode Island Chronic Care
Sustainability Initiative.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients in 5 pilot and 34 comparison practices.
INTERVENTIONS: Financial support, care managers, and technical assistance for
quality improvement and practice transformation.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and
6 process measures of quality of care (3 for diabetes mellitus and 3 for colon,
breast, and cervical cancer screening).
RESULTS: The mean National Committee for Quality Assurance recognition scores of
the pilot practices increased from 42 to 90 points of a possible 100 points. The
pilot and comparison practices had statistically indistinguishable baseline
patient characteristics and practice patterns, except for higher numbers of
attributed member months per year in the pilot practices (31,130 per practice vs
14,779, P = .01) and lower rates of cervical cancer screening in the comparison
practices. Although estimates of the emergency department visits and inpatient
admissions of patients in the pilot practices trended toward lower utilization,
the only significant difference was a lower rate of ambulatory care sensitive
emergency department visits in the pilot practices. The Chronic Care
Sustainability Initiative pilot program was associated with a reduction in
ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits of approximately 0.8 per
1000 member months or approximately 11.6% compared with the baseline rate of 6.9
for emergency department visits per 1000 member months (P = .002). No significant
improvements were found in any of the quality measures.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: After 2 years, a pilot program of a patient-centered
medical home was associated with substantial improvements in medical home
recognition scores and a significant reduction in ambulatory care sensitive
emergency department visits. Although not achieving significance, there were
downward trends in emergency department visits and inpatient admissions.
PMID: 24018613 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]