Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo1, Ana Marušić. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Cantonal Hospital Zenica, Crkvice 67, 72000, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, mmahmickaknjo@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared recently introduced Basic Medicines Lists of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) (FBH Basic Lists (FBLs)) with the World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Medicines List (EML) and the evidence supporting the inclusion of additional medicines on FBLs. METHODS: The sources of data included the 18th edition of the EML and the following FBLs: 2013 Hospital List, 2013 A List in Outpatient Setting, and 2012 List financed by the Federal Solidarity Fund. For medicines found on FBLs but not on EML, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CSR) and public health technology assessment (HTA) reports for evidence. RESULTS: FBLs had 134 medicines and 17 combinations that were not on EML, as well as 9 medicines deleted and 4 rejected from EML. EML had 82 medicines and 10 combinations of medicines not included in FBLs. Out of 125 medicines on FBLs but not on EML, 52 (42%) had good CSR evidence supporting their inclusion (n = 38) or exclusion (n = 14). For the rest (n = 74), we found 24 favourable HTA reports. For the total of 89 medicines (27%) listed on FBLs, we found no evidence (EML, CSR, HTA reports) good enough to justify their inclusion in FBLs. CONCLUSIONS: In circumstances of scarce financial resources, greater reliance on well-established, proven list is crucial. Independent, unbiased, high-quality evidence such as WHO EML, CSR and HTA reports (national or international with local adaptations) should be used when deciding on medicine reimbursement.
PURPOSE: We compared recently introduced Basic Medicines Lists of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) (FBH Basic Lists (FBLs)) with the World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Medicines List (EML) and the evidence supporting the inclusion of additional medicines on FBLs. METHODS: The sources of data included the 18th edition of the EML and the following FBLs: 2013 Hospital List, 2013 A List in Outpatient Setting, and 2012 List financed by the Federal Solidarity Fund. For medicines found on FBLs but not on EML, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CSR) and public health technology assessment (HTA) reports for evidence. RESULTS: FBLs had 134 medicines and 17 combinations that were not on EML, as well as 9 medicines deleted and 4 rejected from EML. EML had 82 medicines and 10 combinations of medicines not included in FBLs. Out of 125 medicines on FBLs but not on EML, 52 (42%) had good CSR evidence supporting their inclusion (n = 38) or exclusion (n = 14). For the rest (n = 74), we found 24 favourable HTA reports. For the total of 89 medicines (27%) listed on FBLs, we found no evidence (EML, CSR, HTA reports) good enough to justify their inclusion in FBLs. CONCLUSIONS: In circumstances of scarce financial resources, greater reliance on well-established, proven list is crucial. Independent, unbiased, high-quality evidence such as WHO EML, CSR and HTA reports (national or international with local adaptations) should be used when deciding on medicine reimbursement.
Authors: Sarah Kleijnen; Wil Toenders; Folkert de Groot; Mirjana Huic; Elisabeth George; Beate Wieseler; Mira Pavlovic; Anna Bucsics; Paolo D Siviero; Martin van der Graaff; Rafał Rdzany; Finn Børlum Kristensen; Wim Goettsch Journal: Health Policy Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Katherine Hodgetts; Janet E Hiller; Jackie M Street; Drew Carter; Annette J Braunack-Mayer; Amber M Watt; John R Moss; Adam G Elshaug Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 2.655