从主要利益相关者的观点看韩国对风险分担协议的看法:一种趋同平行混合方法。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tae-Jin Lee, Kyung-Bok Son
{"title":"从主要利益相关者的观点看韩国对风险分担协议的看法:一种趋同平行混合方法。","authors":"Tae-Jin Lee, Kyung-Bok Son","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2410250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In 2013, South Korea introduced risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) as a new reimbursement mechanism to enhance access to new medicines and to manage pharmaceutical expenditures. This study evaluates RSAs in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2022, a survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted. Study participants were recruited from academia (<i>n</i> = 3), domestic (<i>n</i> = 4) and foreign (<i>n</i> = 6) manufacturers, and government agencies (<i>n</i> = 6) using a purposive sampling method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key stakeholders perceived the objective of RSAs to be 'access to medicines' and understood RSAs to manage uncertainty about 'expenditures.' They responded that financial- and performance-based RSAs address uncertainty about 'expenditures' and 'clinical effectiveness,' respectively. All stakeholders agreed that RSAs have increased the likelihood that new medicines will be listed and have reduced out-of-pocket expenditures for patients. However, foreign manufacturers insisted that the benefits of RSAs are marginal, while the administrative burden on manufacturers is high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The gaps in perception between stakeholders could be narrowed by conducting a comprehensive evaluation. Financial- and performance-based RSAs need to be clearly distinguished and aligned to address the uncertainties of a new medicine in health systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of risk sharing agreements in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders: a convergent parallel mixed approach.\",\"authors\":\"Tae-Jin Lee, Kyung-Bok Son\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2024.2410250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In 2013, South Korea introduced risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) as a new reimbursement mechanism to enhance access to new medicines and to manage pharmaceutical expenditures. This study evaluates RSAs in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2022, a survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted. Study participants were recruited from academia (<i>n</i> = 3), domestic (<i>n</i> = 4) and foreign (<i>n</i> = 6) manufacturers, and government agencies (<i>n</i> = 6) using a purposive sampling method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key stakeholders perceived the objective of RSAs to be 'access to medicines' and understood RSAs to manage uncertainty about 'expenditures.' They responded that financial- and performance-based RSAs address uncertainty about 'expenditures' and 'clinical effectiveness,' respectively. All stakeholders agreed that RSAs have increased the likelihood that new medicines will be listed and have reduced out-of-pocket expenditures for patients. However, foreign manufacturers insisted that the benefits of RSAs are marginal, while the administrative burden on manufacturers is high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The gaps in perception between stakeholders could be narrowed by conducting a comprehensive evaluation. Financial- and performance-based RSAs need to be clearly distinguished and aligned to address the uncertainties of a new medicine in health systems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2410250\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2410250","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:2013 年,韩国引入风险分担协议 (RSA) 作为一种新的报销机制,以提高新药的可及性并管理医药支出。本研究从主要利益相关者的角度对韩国的风险分担协议进行了评估:2022 年,进行了一项调查和半结构化访谈。采用目的性抽样方法,从学术界(3 人)、国内外制造商(4 人)和政府机构(6 人)中招募研究参与者:主要利益相关者认为登记册系统管理的目标是 "获得药品",并认为登记册系统管理的是 "支出 "的不确定性。他们认为,以财务和绩效为基础的 RSA 可分别解决 "支出 "和 "临床效果 "的不确定性。所有利益相关方都认为,登记册制度提高了新药上市的可能性,并减少了患者的自付支出。然而,外国制造商坚持认为,登记册系统管理的好处微乎其微,而制造商的行政负担却很重:结论:通过开展全面评估,可以缩小利益相关者之间的认识差距。需要明确区分以财务为基础和以绩效为基础的登记互认协议,并对其进行调整,以应对医疗系统中新药物的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceptions of risk sharing agreements in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders: a convergent parallel mixed approach.

Objectives: In 2013, South Korea introduced risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) as a new reimbursement mechanism to enhance access to new medicines and to manage pharmaceutical expenditures. This study evaluates RSAs in South Korea from the viewpoints of key stakeholders.

Methods: In 2022, a survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted. Study participants were recruited from academia (n = 3), domestic (n = 4) and foreign (n = 6) manufacturers, and government agencies (n = 6) using a purposive sampling method.

Results: Key stakeholders perceived the objective of RSAs to be 'access to medicines' and understood RSAs to manage uncertainty about 'expenditures.' They responded that financial- and performance-based RSAs address uncertainty about 'expenditures' and 'clinical effectiveness,' respectively. All stakeholders agreed that RSAs have increased the likelihood that new medicines will be listed and have reduced out-of-pocket expenditures for patients. However, foreign manufacturers insisted that the benefits of RSAs are marginal, while the administrative burden on manufacturers is high.

Conclusion: The gaps in perception between stakeholders could be narrowed by conducting a comprehensive evaluation. Financial- and performance-based RSAs need to be clearly distinguished and aligned to address the uncertainties of a new medicine in health systems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信