RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: External reference pricing (ERP) is a price regulation tool widely used by policy makers in the European Union (EU) Member States (MS) to contain drug cost, although in theory, it may contribute to modulate prices up and down. The objective of this article was to summarise and discuss the main findings of part of a large project conducted for the European Commission ('External reference pricing of medicinal products: simulation-based considerations for cross-country coordination'; see www.ec.europa.eu/health/healthcare/docs/erp_reimbursement_medicinal_products_en.pdf) that aimed to provide an overview of ERP systems, both on processes and potential issues in 31 European countries (28 EU MS, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland). METHODS: A systematic structured literature review was conducted to identify and characterise the use of ERP in the selected countries, to describe its impact on the prices of pharmaceuticals, and to discuss the possible cross-country coordination issues in EU MS. This research was complemented with a consultation of competent authorities' and international organisations' representatives to address the main issues or uncertainties identified through the literature review. RESULTS: All selected countries applied ERP, except the United Kingdom and Sweden. Twenty-three countries used ERP as the main systematic criterion for pricing. In the majority of European countries, ERP was based on legislated pricing rules with different levels of accuracy. ERP was applied either for all marketed drugs or for specific categories of medicines; it was mainly used for publicly reimbursed medicines. The number of reference countries included in the basket varied from 1 to 31. There was a great variation in the calculation methods used to compute the price; 15 countries used the average price, 7 countries used the lowest price, and 7 countries used other calculation methods. Reported limitations of ERP application included the lack of reliable sources of price information, price heterogeneity, exchange rate volatility, and hidden discounts. Spill-over effect and downward price convergence have often been mentioned as ERP's consequences leading to pricing strategies from pharmaceutical companies. CONCLUSION: While ERP is widely used in Europe, processes and availability of price information vary from one country to another, thus limiting ERP implementation. Furthermore, ERP spill-over effect is a major concern of pharmaceutical firms leading to implementation of the so-called 'launch sequence strategies'.
RESUMEN
As more evidence points to the association of cognitive dysfunction with mental health disorders, the assessment of cognitive function in routine clinical care of these disorders is increasingly important. Despite this, it remains unknown how cognitive function is measured in routine clinical practice. The objective of this study was to assess psychiatrists' awareness of cognitive dysfunction in mental health disorders and their methods of cognitive assessment. An online survey was disseminated to psychiatrists in Europe, Asia, Australia and the United States. The survey asked about their perceptions of cognitive dysfunction in several mental health disorders, knowledge of cognitive assessment, method of cognitive assessment, and instruments used to measure cognitive function. Among the 61 respondents, most perceived that schizophrenia was associated with the greatest cognitive dysfunction. Many were unaware whether guidelines were available on cognitive assessment. In schizophrenia, 59% of psychiatrists reportedly used cognitive instruments, while the remainder relied solely on patient history interviews. The use of instruments to assess cognition in major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BPD) was lower, 38% and 37% respectively. Of the reported instruments used, only a few were actually appropriate for use in the diseases of interest (12% in schizophrenia, 3% in MDD and 0% in BPD). Other instruments reported were clinical measures that did not assess cognition. These findings reveal some inconsistencies in psychiatrists' routine clinical evaluation of cognitive function. There appeared to be low use of true cognitive assessment instruments in clinical practice and confusion regarding what constituted a cognitive assessment instrument.
