[PHP17] Survey on drug value assessment among prescribers and payers in Italian hospitals

[PHP17] Survey on drug value assessment among prescribers and payers in Italian hospitals

2003 Value in health

Negrini, C. | D'Ausilio, A. | Lopatriello, S. | Berto, P. | Volume: 6, Issue: 6, Pages: 715-716, Value, therapy, Heart, Heart Failure, methods,

OBJECTIVES: To identify and analyse elements on which
hospital decision makers base their therapy value assessment,
both in general terms and in relation to acute Heart
Failure (aHF)treatment. METHODS: Thirty face to face
interviews (15 hospital pharmacists and 15 cardiologists)
were conducted in December 2002 in 15 Italian hospitals.
Three major topics were investigated, Hospital Formulary
(HF) listing process, epidemiology and medical need in
aHF, HF listing process for aHF drugs, a semi-structured
questionnaire was used and both spontaneous and
elicited citations were recorded. RESULTS: Most quoted
requisites were: superior efficacy in comparison to available
alternatives, better cost-effectiveness profile, credibility,
and size of clinical studies. Innovation is relevant
to pharmacists, while QoL and length of hospital stay are
important mostly for cardiologists. Cardiologist and
pharmacists showed different level of information regarding
aHF. Similar average yearly number of aHF hospitalisation
were reported by both targets (cardiologists =
968,7 range 1-1000; pharmacists = 937,5 range 250-
1500) but response rate was only 27% among pharmacists.
Eighty-seven percent of the pharmacists were unable
to rate aHF mortality in their hospitals, estimated by
cardiologists from 6-7% to 60-70%. Cardiologists
scored clinical efficacy (93%) and absence of contraindication/interactions
(60%) as the most important characteristics
of aHF products, while innovation and clinical
documentation size and credibility (40% and 47%
respectively) are important to pharmacists. Drug price
may negatively influence drug listing, limiting the adoption
of new products. Reimbursement level assigned by
the Ministry of Health is considered an indicator of drug
benefit evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Drug efficacy is still
guiding product assessment process but cost-effectiveness
information is progressively gaining relevance. Decision
makers information on disease epidemiology and medical
need may be reinforced, allowing for better acceptance of
new effective product. Global treatment cost might be
considered in drug assessment instead of product price in
order to motivate manufacturers in producing robust and
credible economic information.

https://www.doi.org/10.1016/S1098-3015(10)61825-6