segunda-feira, julho 16, 2007
Novamente a partir do Saúde SA, mais um relato da estranha forma como vão funcionar os sistemas de saúde no futuro.
Confesso que ainda não tenho opinião formada sobre esta matéria. No entanto, será irresistível a tentação da indústria tentar controlar os doentes que receberão os seus medicamentos. A principal questão que se põe é: e isso é bom ou mau?
Confesso que ainda não tenho opinião formada sobre esta matéria. No entanto, será irresistível a tentação da indústria tentar controlar os doentes que receberão os seus medicamentos. A principal questão que se põe é: e isso é bom ou mau?
Pricing Pills by the Results
Há uma preocupação crescente dos responsáveis da saúde da UE na selecção de nova tecnologia através de estudos de custo/efectividade, relativamente às novas substâncias a comparticipar (relação custo/ganhos em saúde).
Indo ao encontro desta preocupação, os laboratórios no intuito de assegurarem a comparticipação do SNS, aceitam/propõem novas fórmulas de pagamento, em função da efectividade terapêutica dos seus produtos.
‘Oh, I’m sorry your grandma died. Here’s your money back’ link
(…) Johnson & Johnson has proposed that Britain’s national health service pay for the cancer drug Velcade, but only for people who benefit from the medicine, which can cost $48,000 a patient. The company would refund any money spent on patients whose tumors do not shrink sufficiently after a trial treatment.
The groundbreaking proposal, along with less radical pricing experiments in this country and overseas, may signal the pharmaceutical industry’s willingness to edge toward a new pay-for-performance paradigm — in which a drug’s price would be based on how well it worked, and might be adjusted up or down as new evidence came in.(...)
“The point is to try to make the manufacturer responsible for how their product is used in the medical marketplace,” .
(...) Some companies that sell expensive drugs — including Genentech, which makes cancer treatments, and Genzyme, which makes drugs for rare diseases — said they were not involved in or considering any risk-sharing plans. They said they already helped make their drugs available to patients who cannot afford them. Genentech also said it was working on tests to better determine which patients should get a drug in the first place.
But drug companies might need to be more flexible in countries like Britain, where drugs are paid for only if they are deemed cost-effective — as measured by how much the health system must pay to achieve certain gains in the length and quality of patients’ lives. (...)
Indo ao encontro desta preocupação, os laboratórios no intuito de assegurarem a comparticipação do SNS, aceitam/propõem novas fórmulas de pagamento, em função da efectividade terapêutica dos seus produtos.
‘Oh, I’m sorry your grandma died. Here’s your money back’ link
(…) Johnson & Johnson has proposed that Britain’s national health service pay for the cancer drug Velcade, but only for people who benefit from the medicine, which can cost $48,000 a patient. The company would refund any money spent on patients whose tumors do not shrink sufficiently after a trial treatment.
The groundbreaking proposal, along with less radical pricing experiments in this country and overseas, may signal the pharmaceutical industry’s willingness to edge toward a new pay-for-performance paradigm — in which a drug’s price would be based on how well it worked, and might be adjusted up or down as new evidence came in.(...)
“The point is to try to make the manufacturer responsible for how their product is used in the medical marketplace,” .
(...) Some companies that sell expensive drugs — including Genentech, which makes cancer treatments, and Genzyme, which makes drugs for rare diseases — said they were not involved in or considering any risk-sharing plans. They said they already helped make their drugs available to patients who cannot afford them. Genentech also said it was working on tests to better determine which patients should get a drug in the first place.
But drug companies might need to be more flexible in countries like Britain, where drugs are paid for only if they are deemed cost-effective — as measured by how much the health system must pay to achieve certain gains in the length and quality of patients’ lives. (...)
Etiquetas: Farmácia, Política de Saúde
Comments:
Enviar um comentário
