Comparing cost-sharing practices for pharmaceuticals and health care services among four central European countries

The paper reviews the existing cost-sharing practices in four Central European countries namely the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia focusing on patient co-payments for pharmaceuticals and services covered by the social health insurance. The aim is to examine the role of cost-sharing arrangements and to evaluate them in terms of efficiency, equity and public acceptance to support policy making on patient payments in Central Europe. Our results suggest that the share of out-of-pocket payments in total health care expenditure is relatively high (24–27%) in the countries examined. The main driver of these payments is the expenditure on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, which share exceeds 70% of the household expenditure on health care. The four countries use similar cost-sharing techniques for pharmaceuticals, however there are differences concerning the measure of exemption mechanisms for vulnerable social groups. Patient payment policies for health care services covered by the social health insurance are also converging. All the four countries apply co-payments for dental care, some hotel services or in the case of free choice of physician. Also the countries (except for Poland) tried to extend co-payments for physician services and hospital care. However, their introduction met strong political opposition and unpopularity among public.

Trading between perceived risks and benefits related to biosimilar biological treatment in Crohn’s disease; discrete choice experiment among gastroenterologists

Objective: The objective of the study is to explore preferences of gastroenterologists for biosimilar drugs in Crohn’s Disease and reveal trade-offs between the perceived risks and benefits related to biosimilar drugs. Method: Discrete choice experiment was carried out involving 51 Hungarian gastroenterologists in May, 2014. The following attributes were used to describe hypothetical choice sets: 1) type of the treatment (biosimilar/originator) 2) severity of disease 3) availability of continuous medicine supply 4) frequency of the efficacy check-ups. Multinomial logit model was used to differentiate between three attitude types: 1) always opting for the originator 2) willing to consider biosimilar for biological-naïve patients only 3) willing to consider biosimilar treatment for both types of patients. Conditional logit model was used to estimate the probabilities of choosing a given profile. Results: Men, senior consultants, working in IBD center and treating more patients are more likely to willing to consider biosimilar for biological-naïve patients only. Treatment type (originator/biosimilar) was the most important determinant of choice for patients already treated with biologicals, and the availability of continuous medicine supply in the case biological-naïve patients. The probabilities of choosing the biosimilar with all the benefits offered over the originator under current reimbursement conditions are 89% vs 11% for new patients, and 44% vs 56% for patients already treated with biological. Conclusions: Gastroenterologists were willing to trade between perceived risks and benefits of biosimilars. The continuous medical supply would be one of the major benefits of biosimilars. However, benefits offered in the scenarios do not compensate for the change from the originator to the biosimilar treatment of patients already treated with biologicals.