Rule of Prevention: a potential framework to evaluate preventive interventions for rare diseases.

Background: The benefits of preventive interventions lack comprehensive evaluation in standard health technology assessments (HTA), particularly for rare and transmissible diseases. Objective: To identify possible considerations for future HTA using analogies between the treatment and prevention of rare diseases. Study design: An Expert panel meeting assessed whether one HTA assessment framework can be applied to assess both rare disease treatments and preventive interventions. Experts also evaluated the range of value elements currently included in HTAs and their applicability to rare, transmissible, and/or preventable diseases. Results: A broad range of value should be considered when assessing rare, transmissible disease prevention. Although standard HTA can be applied to transmissible diseases, the risk of local outbreaks and the need for large-scale prevention programs suggest a modified assessment framework, capable of incorporating prevention-specific value elements in HTAs. A 'Rule of Prevention' framework was proposed to allow broader value considerations anchored to severity, equity, and prevention benefits in decision-making for preventive interventions for rare transmissible diseases. Conclusion: The proposed prevention framework introduces an explicit initial approach to consistently assess rare transmissible diseases, and to incorporate the broader value of preventive interventions compared with treatment.

How dental utilisation in The Netherlands was affected by a radical reform of the dental insurance system.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the effects of the 1995 insurance system reform on dental utilisation. STUDY DESIGN: Four categories of patients experiencing homogeneous insurance changes - public/private insurance with and without additional private dental insurance--were analysed. The reform was hypothesised to increase dental expenditure for the Sickfund with (S+), and privately insured with (P+) and without (P-) additional dental insurance. Sickfund insured without additional dental insurance (S-) were not expected to change dental expenditure. Volume effects were also hypothesised per insurance group. These eight hypotheses were tested using longitudinal dental utilisation data of regularly attending adult dental patients: 91 general dental practitioners provided 803 utilisation records. RESULTS: The expected increase by S+ of dental expenditure was corroborated by the results. The three other hypotheses regarding dental expenditure were not supported by the results. The hypotheses regarding volume of dental services were partially supported. The S+ significantly increased their uptake of crowns. The S- showed constant uptake of crowns, endodontics and extractions as expected. The results for P+ and P- showed the constant uptake of restorations. The P+ group also showed the hypothesised significant increase in endodontics. CONCLUSIONS: Having additional dental insurance did not seem to influence the use of dental care in this population of regular attending adult patients. The basic health insurance (Sickfund or private) seemed to have an effect on dental utilisation. The results indicate an association of (expected) treatment need and the application for additional dental insurance.