Valutazione dell'impatto della farmacogenetica in ambito di Sanità Pubblica. Analisi del polimorfismo genetico dell'enzima CYP2D6 metabolizzante xenobiotici.

Pharmacogenetic testing provides an outstanding opportunity to improve prescribing safety and efficacy. In Public health policy pharmacogenetics is relevant for personalized therapy and to maximize therapeutic benefit minimizing adverse events. CYP2D6 is known to be a key enzyme responsible for the biotransformation of about 25-30% of extensively used drugs and genetic variations in genes coding for drug-metabolizing enzymes might lead to adverse drug reactions, toxicity or therapeutic failure of pharmacotherapy. Significant interethnic differences in CYP2D6 allele distribution are well established, but immigration is reshaping the genetic background due to interethnic admixture which introduces variations in individual ancestry resulting in distinct level of population structure. The present thesis deals with the genetic determination of the CYP2D6 alleles actually present in the Emilia-Romagna resident population providing insights into the admixture process. A random sample of 122 natives and 175 immigrants from Africa, Asia and South America where characterized considering the present scenario of migration and back migration events. The results are consistent with the known interethnic genetic variation, but introduction of ethnic specific variants by immigrants predicts a heterogeneous admixed population scenario requiring, for drugs prescription and pharmacogenetics studies, an interdisciplinary approach applied in a properly biogeographical and anthropological frame. To translate pharmacogenetics knowledge into clinical practice requires appropriated public health policies, possibly guiding clinicians to evaluate prospectively which patients have the greatest probability of expressing a variant genotype.

Medical Malpractice in Public Healthcare Systems: An Empirical Investigation of Scheduled Damages

In the last decades, medical malpractice has been framed as one of the most critical issues for healthcare providers and health policy, holding a central role on both the policy agenda and public debate. The Law and Economics literature has devoted much attention to medical malpractice and to the investigation of the impact of malpractice reforms. Nonetheless, some reforms have been much less empirically studied as in the case of schedules, and their effects remain highly debated. The present work seeks to contribute to the study of medical malpractice and of schedules of noneconomic damages in a civil law country with a public national health system, using Italy as case study. Besides considering schedules and exploiting a quasi-experimental setting, the novelty of our contribution consists in the inclusion of the performance of the judiciary (measured as courts’ civil backlog) in the empirical analysis. The empirical analysis is twofold. First, it investigates how limiting compensations for pain and suffering through schedules impacts on the malpractice insurance market in terms of presence of private insurers and of premiums applied. Second, it examines whether, and to what extent, healthcare providers react to the implementation of this policy in terms of both levels and composition of the medical treatments offered. Our findings show that the introduction of schedules increases the presence of insurers only in inefficient courts, while it does not produce significant effects on paid premiums. Judicial inefficiency is attractive to insurers for average values of schedules penetration of the market, with an increasing positive impact of inefficiency as the territorial coverage of schedules increases. Moreover, the implementation of schedules tends to reduce the use of defensive practices on the part of clinicians, but the magnitude of this impact is ultimately determined by the actual degree of backlog of the court implementing schedules.