No abstract

Background: Achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has by now become a key health policy goal in many countries and some form of National Health Insurance (NHI) is often used for this. The Philippines has had more than 50 years’ experience with social health insurance and in 1995 established PhilHealth, the country’s national health insurer. Objectives: Analyzing the role of the Philippine NHI scheme in moving towards UHC, identifying potential avenues for improvement as well as indicating challenges and areas for further development. Methods: This paper is based on a mixed methods approach including extensive literature search, data from PhilHealth and other sources, and key informant interviews with staff at PhilHealth, health care providers, and policy experts at national and international level. Results: Major achievements were the expansion of population coverage using an earmarked revenue source (‘Sin Tax’), the introduction of the no-balance-billing to prevent co-payments, and the Health Facilities Enhancement Program to improve quality. The share of PhilHealth in total health expenditures is still only 14%, managing quality and cost of providers remains insufficient, the benefit coverage does not reflect the country’s burden of disease, and financial protection for PhilHealth members is low. The UHC bill would provide a massive jump forward as all Filipinos would then be automatically enrolled in and thus entitled to the benefits of PhilHealth. Conclusions: For expanding a contribution-based NHI beyond formal employment there needs to be a large increase in budget transfers to cover for citizens unable to contribute. The Philippine UHC bill shifts from the idea of contribution leading to entitlement to the idea of citizenship leading to entitlement and can thus be seen as a paradigmatic change in thinking about NHI. There are three areas that we believe are of key importance in developing further NHI: (i) governance, (ii) financial impact, and (iii) strategic purchasing.

No abstract

We did a cost-utility analysis for the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the German population based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALY), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The aim of our investigation was to examine cost-utility for current German drug market costs and compared to other countries. Outcome data were taken from dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET AF, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. A Markov decision model, the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), and further sensitivity analyses were used to simulate comparisons between NOACs over a follow up period of 20 years. The main perspective used for the analyses is from a German public health care insurance perspective. The base-case analyses of a 65 years old person with a CHADS2 score >1 resulted in 7.56-7.64 QALYs gained for warfarin. NOACs added 0.04-0.19 QALYs. Total costs for warfarin ranged from 7622 to 9069 and for NOACs from 19537 to 20048. The sensitivity analysis indicated that current German market costs for the NOACs exceed a willingness-to-pay threshold of (hypothetical) 50000/QALY in all treatment regimen. The MCS showed willingness-to-pay thresholds from 60500/QALY for apixaban to 278000/QALY for dabigatran 110 mg bid, with values for dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban in between. In conclusion, from a German public health care insurance perspective current market costs are high in relation to the quality of life gained. These results from clinical studies (efficacy) remain to be confirmed under real life conditions (effectiveness).

No abstract

Healthcare reforms are often not coupled with a relevant and appropriate monitoring framework, leaving policymakers and the public without evidence about the implications of such reforms.Kazakhstan has embarked on a large-scale reform of its healthcare system in order to achieve Universal Health Coverage. The health-related 2020 Strategic Development Goals reflect this political ambition. In a case-study approach and on the basis of published and unpublished evidence as well as personal involvement and experience (A) the indicators in the 2020 Strategic Development Goals were assessed and (B) a ‘data-mapping’ exercise was conducted, where the WHO health system framework was used to describe the data available at present in Kazakhstan and comment on the different indicators regarding their usefulness for monitoring the current health-related 2020 Strategic Development Goals in Kazakhstan.It was concluded that the country’s current monitoring framework needs further development to track the progress and outcomes of policy implementation. The application of a modified WHO/World Bank/Global Fund health system monitoring framework was suggested to examine the implications of recent health sector reforms. Lessons drawn from the Kazakhstan experience on tailoring the suggested framework, collecting the data, and using the generated intelligence in policy development and decision-making can serve as a useful example for other middle-income countries, potentially enabling them to fast-track developments in the health sector.

We compared the cost-utility analysis for edoxaban at both doses with that of dabigatran at both doses, rivaroxaban, and apixaban (non vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, NOAC) in a German population. Data of clinical outcome events were taken from edoxaban's ENGAGE-AF, dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. The base-case analyses of a 65-year-old person with a CHADS2 score >1 gained 0.17 and 0.21 quality-adjusted life years over warfarin for 30 mg od and 60 mg od edoxaban, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50.000 and 68.000 euro per quality-adjusted life years for the higher and lower dose of edoxaban (Monte Carlo simulation). These findings were also similar to those for apixaban and more cost-effective than the other NOAC regimens. The current market costs for direct oral anticoagulants are high in relation to the quality of life gained from a German public health care insurance perspective. The willingness-to-pay threshold was lowest for 60 mg edoxaban compared to all direct oral anticoagulants and for 30 mg edoxaban compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

1164 The three new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) dabigatran 110mg bid and 150mg bid, investigated in the RE-LY trial, rivaroxaban 20mg od of the ROCKET trial, and apixaban 5mg bid of the ARISTOTLE trial showed equivalent or superior efficacy and safety compared to warfarin in these patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis for these NOACs in Germany and compared the quality of life (QALY), incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER), and total costs across those countries form where these data are published. The base case population was a hypothetical cohort of patients 65 years or older with AF who were at increased risk for stroke (CHADS2-score >1) and had no contraindications to anticoagulation. The time horizon was based on the life expectancy of the German population. The QALYs, health insurance costs, and ICER for the NOACs compared with warfarin were calculated for each study. The sensitivity analysis was performed for different base case prices. The Markov decision model was adopted using the TreeAge Pro 2011 program. The data of the outcomes of ischemic stroke and cerebral embolism, major and intracerebral haemorrhage, myocardial infarction, and mortality were taken from the 3 studies comparing the NOAC with INR-adjusted warfarin. Prices for clinical events and for outpatient care were taken from the institute for payment regulations in German hospitals (InEK). The base-case analysis of a 65 years old person with a >2 CHADS2 score using the data from the RE-LY study resulted in 11.41 QALYs for warfarin, 11.53 QALYs for dabigatran 110mg bid, 11.66 QALYs for dabigatran 150 mg bid. ICERs per QALY were 49640€ for dabigatran 110 mg bid and 49590€ for dabigatran 150 mg bid versus warfarin. The same base-case analysis using the data from the ROCKET AF study resulted in 10.79 QALYs for warfarin versus 11.05 QALYs for rivaroxaban. ICERs per QALY were 48980€ for rivaroxaban versus warfarin. The base-case analysis using the data from the ARISTOTLE study resulted and 11.04 QALYs for warfarin versus 11.38 QALYs for apixaban. ICERs per QALY were 49720€ for apixaban versus warfarin. According the Markov Model the daily value based daily prices were 1.25€ for dabigatran 110 mg bid, 2.50€ for dabigatran 150 mg bid, 2.60€ for rivaroxaban, and 3.10€ for apixaban in Germany. The model was highly sensitive to the daily costs for the NOACs but relatively insensitive to other model inputs. Calculating the range of NOAC prices from 0.2 to 10 Euro versus the ICERs dabigatran 110 mg bid produced the highest increase of ICERs over this range of daily costs (Tukey-Kramer test, p<0.05) Comparing these data across countries using the published data shows that the willingness to pay per QALY as well as differences in treatment costs between substantially influences the daily prices of the NOACs. The data demonstrate the necessity to analyse the cost-effectiveness separately for every study due to differences in the INR-adjusted warfarin treated control group. The better the outcome during treatment with warfarin the lower is the benefit of the NOAC. The tendency of the cost-effectiveness calculated by the Markov model is comparable across countries. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.