Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list
To investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI). Medicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n = 509) were...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2014-10, Vol.9 (10), p.e111474-e111474 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e111474 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e111474 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Marusic, Ana Zanic, Maja Å karicic, Natasa Jelicic Kadic, Antonia |
| description | To investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI).
Medicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n = 509) were compared with 2011 WHO EML for adults (n = 359). For medicines with specific indication listed only in CIHI Basic List we assessed whether there was evidence in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews questioning their efficacy and safety.
The two lists shared 188 medicines (52.4% of WHO EML and 32.0% of CIHI list). CIHI Basic List had 254 medicines and 33 combinations of these medicines which were not on the WHO EML, plus 14 medicines rejected and 20 deleted from WHO EML by its Evaluation Committee. For deleted medicines, we could obtain data that showed 2,965,378 prescriptions issued to 617,684 insured patients, and the cost of approximately € 41.2 million for 2012 and the first half of 2013, when the CIHI Basic List was in effect. For CIHI List-only medicines with a specific indication (n = 164 or 57.1% of the analyzed set), fewer benefits or more serious side-effects than other medicines were found for 17 (10.4%) and not enough evidence for recommendations for specific indication for 21 (12.8%) medicines in Cochrane systematic reviews.
National health care policy should use high-quality evidence in deciding on adding new medicines and reassessing those already present on national medicines lists, in order to rationalize expenditures and ensure wider and better access to medicines. The WHO EML and recommendations from its Evaluation Committee may be useful tools in this quality assurance process. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0111474 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2014744496</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A418126472</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4c4b79d021e244aca7d6e452347c1e64</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A418126472</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c762t-36c44b523633119a6469e3d0a4bda850c63e57a15c592304cb42bc9f3d4ef3ac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk91qFDEUxwdRbK2-gWhAEL3YdfIxmR0vhFLUFgoLavUynMmc2U2ZTbY5M8U-ka9pprstu9ILyUXCye_8z0dysuwlz6dclvzDZRiih266Dh6nOedclepRdsgrKSZa5PLxzvkge0Z0meeFnGn9NDsQhZTlTOeH2Z8Lcn7B-iWyX6dzhkToewcdW2HjrPNIrHPUsz4wSHdEtyis1zGso4Me_WgLLXOehgjeIrPhGiMskDVoHbng6SMDZoGQUT80NyM9ipzEACmUZz5twe_EZBHdqh4i4Splc5vA8-xJCx3hi-1-lF18-fzj5HRyPv96dnJ8PrGlFv1EaqtUXQippeS8Aq10hbLJQdUNzIrcaolFCbywRSVkrmytRG2rVjYKWwlWHmWvN7rrLpDZ9piMyMf2KlXpRJxtiCbApUlNWEG8MQGcuTWEuDAQe2c7NMqquqyaXHAUSoGFstGoUnaqtBy1SlqfttGGOhVvU7URuj3R_RvvlmYRro0SeSqtSALvtgIxXA1IvVk5sth14DEMZLjmWpVaC5nQN_-gD1e3pRaQCnC-DSmuHUXNseIzLpKcSNT0ASqtBlfOpg_ZumTfc3i_55CYHn_3CxiIzNn3b__Pzn_us2932CVC1y8pdMP4oWgfVBvQxkAUsb1vMs_NOE933TDjPJntPCW3V7sPdO90N0DyL_W4HUM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2014744496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Marusic, Ana ; Zanic, Maja ; Å karicic, Natasa ; Jelicic Kadic, Antonia</creator><contributor>Bond, Kenneth</contributor><creatorcontrib>Marusic, Ana ; Zanic, Maja ; Å karicic, Natasa ; Jelicic Kadic, Antonia ; Bond, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><description>To investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI).
Medicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n = 509) were compared with 2011 WHO EML for adults (n = 359). For medicines with specific indication listed only in CIHI Basic List we assessed whether there was evidence in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews questioning their efficacy and safety.
The two lists shared 188 medicines (52.4% of WHO EML and 32.0% of CIHI list). CIHI Basic List had 254 medicines and 33 combinations of these medicines which were not on the WHO EML, plus 14 medicines rejected and 20 deleted from WHO EML by its Evaluation Committee. For deleted medicines, we could obtain data that showed 2,965,378 prescriptions issued to 617,684 insured patients, and the cost of approximately € 41.2 million for 2012 and the first half of 2013, when the CIHI Basic List was in effect. For CIHI List-only medicines with a specific indication (n = 164 or 57.1% of the analyzed set), fewer benefits or more serious side-effects than other medicines were found for 17 (10.4%) and not enough evidence for recommendations for specific indication for 21 (12.8%) medicines in Cochrane systematic reviews.
National health care policy should use high-quality evidence in deciding on adding new medicines and reassessing those already present on national medicines lists, in order to rationalize expenditures and ensure wider and better access to medicines. The WHO EML and recommendations from its Evaluation Committee may be useful tools in this quality assurance process.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111474</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25337860</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome ; Adults ; AIDS ; Case reports ; Case studies ; Comparative analysis ; Drugs ; Drugs, Essential ; Evaluation ; Expenditures ; Health care ; Health care policy ; Health insurance ; Health Policy ; Humans ; Indication ; Insurance ; Insurance Coverage ; Insurance, Health ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; National insurance ; Quality assurance ; World Health Organization</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2014-10, Vol.9 (10), p.e111474-e111474</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2014 Jeličić Kadić et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2014 Jeličić Kadić et al 2014 Jeličić Kadić et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c762t-36c44b523633119a6469e3d0a4bda850c63e57a15c592304cb42bc9f3d4ef3ac3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c762t-36c44b523633119a6469e3d0a4bda850c63e57a15c592304cb42bc9f3d4ef3ac3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206465/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206465/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25337860$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Bond, Kenneth</contributor><creatorcontrib>Marusic, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zanic, Maja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Å karicic, Natasa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jelicic Kadic, Antonia</creatorcontrib><title>Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>To investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI).
Medicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n = 509) were compared with 2011 WHO EML for adults (n = 359). For medicines with specific indication listed only in CIHI Basic List we assessed whether there was evidence in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews questioning their efficacy and safety.
The two lists shared 188 medicines (52.4% of WHO EML and 32.0% of CIHI list). CIHI Basic List had 254 medicines and 33 combinations of these medicines which were not on the WHO EML, plus 14 medicines rejected and 20 deleted from WHO EML by its Evaluation Committee. For deleted medicines, we could obtain data that showed 2,965,378 prescriptions issued to 617,684 insured patients, and the cost of approximately € 41.2 million for 2012 and the first half of 2013, when the CIHI Basic List was in effect. For CIHI List-only medicines with a specific indication (n = 164 or 57.1% of the analyzed set), fewer benefits or more serious side-effects than other medicines were found for 17 (10.4%) and not enough evidence for recommendations for specific indication for 21 (12.8%) medicines in Cochrane systematic reviews.
National health care policy should use high-quality evidence in deciding on adding new medicines and reassessing those already present on national medicines lists, in order to rationalize expenditures and ensure wider and better access to medicines. The WHO EML and recommendations from its Evaluation Committee may be useful tools in this quality assurance process.</description><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</subject><subject>Adults</subject><subject>AIDS</subject><subject>Case reports</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Drugs, Essential</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Expenditures</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Health Policy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Indication</subject><subject>Insurance</subject><subject>Insurance Coverage</subject><subject>Insurance, Health</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>National insurance</subject><subject>Quality assurance</subject><subject>World Health Organization</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk91qFDEUxwdRbK2-gWhAEL3YdfIxmR0vhFLUFgoLavUynMmc2U2ZTbY5M8U-ka9pprstu9ILyUXCye_8z0dysuwlz6dclvzDZRiih266Dh6nOedclepRdsgrKSZa5PLxzvkge0Z0meeFnGn9NDsQhZTlTOeH2Z8Lcn7B-iWyX6dzhkToewcdW2HjrPNIrHPUsz4wSHdEtyis1zGso4Me_WgLLXOehgjeIrPhGiMskDVoHbng6SMDZoGQUT80NyM9ipzEACmUZz5twe_EZBHdqh4i4Splc5vA8-xJCx3hi-1-lF18-fzj5HRyPv96dnJ8PrGlFv1EaqtUXQippeS8Aq10hbLJQdUNzIrcaolFCbywRSVkrmytRG2rVjYKWwlWHmWvN7rrLpDZ9piMyMf2KlXpRJxtiCbApUlNWEG8MQGcuTWEuDAQe2c7NMqquqyaXHAUSoGFstGoUnaqtBy1SlqfttGGOhVvU7URuj3R_RvvlmYRro0SeSqtSALvtgIxXA1IvVk5sth14DEMZLjmWpVaC5nQN_-gD1e3pRaQCnC-DSmuHUXNseIzLpKcSNT0ASqtBlfOpg_ZumTfc3i_55CYHn_3CxiIzNn3b__Pzn_us2932CVC1y8pdMP4oWgfVBvQxkAUsb1vMs_NOE933TDjPJntPCW3V7sPdO90N0DyL_W4HUM</recordid><startdate>20141022</startdate><enddate>20141022</enddate><creator>Marusic, Ana</creator><creator>Zanic, Maja</creator><creator>Å karicic, Natasa</creator><creator>Jelicic Kadic, Antonia</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141022</creationdate><title>Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list</title><author>Marusic, Ana ; Zanic, Maja ; Å karicic, Natasa ; Jelicic Kadic, Antonia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c762t-36c44b523633119a6469e3d0a4bda850c63e57a15c592304cb42bc9f3d4ef3ac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</topic><topic>Adults</topic><topic>AIDS</topic><topic>Case reports</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Drugs, Essential</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Expenditures</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Health Policy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Indication</topic><topic>Insurance</topic><topic>Insurance Coverage</topic><topic>Insurance, Health</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>National insurance</topic><topic>Quality assurance</topic><topic>World Health Organization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marusic, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zanic, Maja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Å karicic, Natasa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jelicic Kadic, Antonia</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marusic, Ana</au><au>Zanic, Maja</au><au>Å karicic, Natasa</au><au>Jelicic Kadic, Antonia</au><au>Bond, Kenneth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2014-10-22</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e111474</spage><epage>e111474</epage><pages>e111474-e111474</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>To investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI).
Medicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n = 509) were compared with 2011 WHO EML for adults (n = 359). For medicines with specific indication listed only in CIHI Basic List we assessed whether there was evidence in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews questioning their efficacy and safety.
The two lists shared 188 medicines (52.4% of WHO EML and 32.0% of CIHI list). CIHI Basic List had 254 medicines and 33 combinations of these medicines which were not on the WHO EML, plus 14 medicines rejected and 20 deleted from WHO EML by its Evaluation Committee. For deleted medicines, we could obtain data that showed 2,965,378 prescriptions issued to 617,684 insured patients, and the cost of approximately € 41.2 million for 2012 and the first half of 2013, when the CIHI Basic List was in effect. For CIHI List-only medicines with a specific indication (n = 164 or 57.1% of the analyzed set), fewer benefits or more serious side-effects than other medicines were found for 17 (10.4%) and not enough evidence for recommendations for specific indication for 21 (12.8%) medicines in Cochrane systematic reviews.
National health care policy should use high-quality evidence in deciding on adding new medicines and reassessing those already present on national medicines lists, in order to rationalize expenditures and ensure wider and better access to medicines. The WHO EML and recommendations from its Evaluation Committee may be useful tools in this quality assurance process.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>25337860</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0111474</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2014-10, Vol.9 (10), p.e111474-e111474 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2014744496 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Acquired immune deficiency syndrome Adults AIDS Case reports Case studies Comparative analysis Drugs Drugs, Essential Evaluation Expenditures Health care Health care policy Health insurance Health Policy Humans Indication Insurance Insurance Coverage Insurance, Health Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences National insurance Quality assurance World Health Organization |
| title | Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T06%3A05%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Using%20the%20WHO%20essential%20medicines%20list%20to%20assess%20the%20appropriateness%20of%20insurance%20coverage%20decisions:%20a%20case%20study%20of%20the%20Croatian%20national%20medicine%20reimbursement%20list&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Marusic,%20Ana&rft.date=2014-10-22&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e111474&rft.epage=e111474&rft.pages=e111474-e111474&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111474&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA418126472%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2014744496&rft_id=info:pmid/25337860&rft_galeid=A418126472&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_4c4b79d021e244aca7d6e452347c1e64&rfr_iscdi=true |