Real world insights for psoriasis: the association of severity of skin lesions with work productivity, medical consumption costs and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a prevalent, chronic skin disease with a potential impact on work productivity, medical consumption costs, and quality of life. The influence of the extent of skin lesions on these outcomes is not well known. OBJECTIVE: We determined associations of self-reported skin lesions with self-reported work productivity, medical consumption costs, and health-related quality of life in respondents with psoriasis. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we included respondents with self-reported psoriasis in the Netherlands in an online questionnaire. We assessed the self-reported percentage body surface area (BSA) of psoriasis lesions. We used validated instruments to assess work productivity (WPAI-PsO), medical consumption costs (iMCQ), and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and the DLQI). We used ordinal logistic regression to associate BSA categories >1% versus 0-1% with outcomes adjusted for multiple confounders. RESULTS: We included 501 respondents with a mean age of 43 ± 12 years; 64% were men. Median BSA was 2% (interquartile range 1-5%). A higher BSA was associated with higher overall work impairment due to psoriasis (common odds ratio [cOR] 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-4.29; n = 205), higher medical consumption costs (cOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.45-2.94) and lower health-related quality of life. Associations were strongest with a BSA cutoff of 0% or 1% compared to 2% or higher categories. DISCUSSION: In our study, having few to no lesions in psoriasis was associated with lower overall work impairment due to psoriasis, lower medical consumption costs, and higher health-related quality of life.

Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens' support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA). RESULTS: On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.

Harnessing global health diplomacy to curb corruption in health

More than a third of the world's population lack access to essential medicines, despite the presence of several international agreements that proclaim health as a human right. The reasons for poor drug access are many and include a lack of uniform good governance in the health care system which may allow for corruption. Corruption, in its many forms, such as bribery and embezzlement, causes several detrimental effects on the health sector and access to medicines including economic, health, and government image and trust issues. Good governance through economic, political and administrative authority is critical for mitigating the effects of corruption. Although many studies have assessed corruption in health, there is a dearth in literature on the scale and extent of global health corruption. Moreover, public officials are often reluctant to discuss problems related to corruption for fear of being held accountable for such problems. This article argues, therefore, that instruments and processes of global health diplomacy must be used to help prioritize empirical research into global health corruption, and broker honest dialogue by state actors with regard to corruption, and ideally mediate negotiations amongst multiple stakeholders for the establishment of a collective framework for the implementation of good governance in health.