Bismarck or Beveridge: a beauty contest between dinosaurs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health systems delivery systems can be divided into two broad categories: National Health Services (NHS) on the one hand and Social Security (based) Health care systems (SSH) on the other hand. Existing literature is inconclusive about which system performs best. In this paper we would like to improve the evidence-base for discussion about pros and cons of NHS-systems versus SSH-system for health outcomes, expenditure and population satisfaction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this study we used time series data for 17 European countries, that were characterized as either NHS or SSH country. We used the following performance indicators: For health outcome: overall mortality rate, infant mortality rate and life expectancy at birth. For health care costs: health care expenditure per capita in pppUS$ and health expenditure as percentage of GDP. Time series dated from 1970 until 2003 or 2004, depending on availability. Sources were OECD health data base 2006 and WHO health for all database 2006. For satisfaction we used the Eurobarometer studies from 1996, 1998 and 1999.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>SSH systems perform slightly better on overall mortality rates and life expectancy (after 1980). For infant mortality the rates converged between the two types of systems and since 1980 no differences ceased to exist.</p> <p>SSH systems are more expensive and NHS systems have a better cost containment. Inhabitants of countries with SSH-systems are on average substantially more satisfied than those in NHS countries.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We concluded that the question 'which type of system performs best' can be answered empirically as far as health outcomes, health care expenditures and patient satisfaction are concerned. Whether this selection of indicators covers all or even most relevant aspects of health system comparison remains to be seen. Perhaps further and more conclusive research into health system related differences in, for instance, equity should be completed before the leading question of this paper can be answered. We do think, however, that this study can form a base for a policy debate on the pros and cons of the existing health care systems in Europe.</p

An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer Inc, USA) have produced conflicting results. The recent controversy over the cardiovascular (CV) risks of rofecoxib and other coxibs has renewed interest in the economic profile of celecoxib, the only coxib now available in the United States. The objective of our study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of celecoxib compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in a population of 60-year-old osteoarthritis (OA) patients with average risks of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications who require chronic daily NSAID therapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used decision analysis based on data from the literature to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a modified societal perspective over patients' lifetimes, with outcomes expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impacts of advancing age, CV thromboembolic event risk, different analytic horizons and alternate treatment strategies after UGI adverse events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our main findings were: 1) the base model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for celecoxib versus nsNSAIDs was $31,097 per QALY; 2) the ICER per QALY was$19,309 for a model in which UGI ulcer and ulcer complication event risks increased with advancing age; 3) the ICER per QALY was $17,120 in sensitivity analyses combining serious CV thromboembolic event (myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death) risks with base model assumptions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our model suggests that chronic celecoxib is cost-effective versus nsNSAIDs in a population of 60-year-old OA patients with average risks of UGI events.</p

Patients’ Desires and Expectations for Medical Care in Primary Care Clinics

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71653/1/j.1525-1497.1998.00080.x.pd

Potential cardiovascular consequences of switching from atorvastatin to generic simvastatin in the Netherlands

The statin authorisation form implemented in the Netherlands in January 2009 has led to significant switching of patients from atorvastatin to generic simvastatin, but often to less than equipotent doses. We sought to assess the potential consequences of this. A modelling analysis was undertaken using data from a pharmacy database covering the majority of drug prescriptions in the Netherlands. Recent meta-analyses provided data on the dose-specific, lipid-modifying potencies of atorvastatin and simvastatin, and the relationship between reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) achieved by statin therapy and relative reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In the first quarter of 2009, 33.7%, 47.2% and 19.1% of Dutch patients initially on atorvastatin were switched to less potent, equipotent and more potent doses of simvastatin, respectively. The net effect was estimated to be a 6.8% increase in LDL-C. Assuming a pre-switch LDL-C of 2 mmol/L, the predicted relative increases (95%CI) in the risks of all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events were 1.7% (0.9%-2.6%) and 2.8% (1.6%-4.1%), respectively. In the Netherlands, policy-driven switching from atorvastatin to generic simvastatin led overall to less potent doses being used, with possible significant clinical implications