Suppr超能文献

对话。解决问题的处方?精神类药物按人头付费——激烈辩论。

Dialogue. Prescription for problems? Capitating mental health drugs--the great debate.

作者信息

Docherty J P, Browne R A, Farmer M

出版信息

Behav Healthc Tomorrow. 1998 Oct;7(5):32-8.

Abstract

With the issue of physician capitation far from being resolved, mental health drug capitation is understandably up for debate. Those who deem it essential point to the rising cost of mental health drugs and urge management techniques which they believe can hold the delicate balance between a plan's budgetary limitations and a patient's appropriate care. They suggest that with an objectively calculated capitation rate, based not on expenditure alone, but on a defined population and their care needs, providers will not have to choose between profitability and optimal care. But others, responding to increasing quality concerns under capitation, worry that the increasing use of formularies will preclude patients and their providers from ready access to newer, more effective medications. With advocates still striving for nationwide parity for mental health benefits, capitating medications is not likely to assuage their concerns. Driving the debate is the fact that new technology drugs are expensive and most health plans are unable to anticipate the funding of breakthrough pharmaceuticals. With the advent of marketing to consumers directly through television and print media, plans and providers are increasingly pressured to provide these medications. The recent clamor for Viagra is an excellent example of how quickly the word can spread. New mental health medications may be even more expensive and offer patients and their families greater effectiveness with far fewer side effects. Plans, providers, and patients are caught in the middle, each holding their distinct view of the problems and solutions. This issue's dialogue brings our readers a discussion of capitation of pharmaceuticals as a primary answer to the sharp rise in mental health drugs. Three points of view lay out the viability and cautions of developing formularies and systems that could keep costs under control while still providing patient access. Without question, the debate will continue as legislative and consumer pressure continues to focus on managed care's techniques for cost savings and patient management. More sophisticated systems, designed for increasingly integrated and complex treatment plans, are certain to be required in the future. However, decisions about how to develop practice guidelines and integrate formularies with expensive new pharmaceutical technology, must begin to take shape now.

摘要

由于医生人头费问题远未得到解决,心理健康药物人头费引发争议也就不足为奇了。那些认为其至关重要的人指出心理健康药物成本不断上升,并敦促采用他们认为能够在计划预算限制与患者适当护理之间保持微妙平衡的管理技术。他们建议,基于客观计算的人头费率,不仅基于支出,还基于特定人群及其护理需求,供应商将不必在盈利能力和最佳护理之间做出选择。但其他人则回应说,在人头费制度下对质量的担忧与日俱增,担心越来越多地使用药品处方集将使患者及其医疗服务提供者无法随时获得更新、更有效的药物。由于倡导者仍在努力争取全国范围内心理健康福利的平等,对药物实行人头费不太可能缓解他们的担忧。引发这场辩论的是这样一个事实,即新技术药物价格昂贵,而且大多数健康计划无法预测突破性药物的资金需求。随着通过电视和印刷媒体直接向消费者进行营销的出现,计划和供应商面临越来越大的压力,要提供这些药物。最近对伟哥的强烈需求就是一个很好的例子,说明消息传播得有多快。新型心理健康药物可能更昂贵,但能为患者及其家人带来更高的疗效,副作用也少得多。计划、供应商和患者陷入了中间地带,每个人对问题和解决方案都持有不同的观点。本期的对话为我们的读者带来了关于将药品人头费作为应对心理健康药物急剧上涨的主要答案的讨论。三种观点阐述了制定能够控制成本同时仍让患者能够获得药物的处方集和系统的可行性及注意事项。毫无疑问,随着立法和消费者压力继续聚焦于管理式医疗节省成本和患者管理的技术,这场辩论将继续下去。未来肯定需要更复杂的系统,以适应日益综合和复杂的治疗计划。然而,关于如何制定实践指南以及如何将处方集与昂贵的新制药技术相结合的决策,现在就必须开始形成。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验