Evaluating the centralized purchasing policy for the treatment of hepatitis C: The Colombian CASE.

The high cost of drugs for hepatitis C limits access and adherence to treatment. In 2017, the Colombian health care system decided to design a strategy. It consisted of centralized purchasing, regulations, clinical practice guidelines, and direct observation of the treatment and follow-up of patients. The main objective of this study was to assess the centralized purchasing strategy in Colombia. The study design was a policy implementation assessment. We analyzed the change in prices, the clinical outcomes, and the opinions of stakeholders using data from the Ministry of Health. Additional information about effectiveness came from the Colombian Fund for High-Cost Diseases and semi-structured interviews of the stakeholders. The follow-up was from October, 2017 to October, 2018. The total number of patients reported in the cohort period was 1069. The number that finished 12 weeks of treatment, completed the follow-up for the case closure, and were considered cured through the end of October, 2018 was 563 (53%). The remainder, 506 patients (47%), are currently in treatment. A total of 543 of these treated patients (96%) were cured. After implementing this strategy, the drug prices decreased by more than 90% overall. Before implementation, the total direct cost was $100 102 171.75 dollars. Afterward, the cost was $8 378 747 dollars.

I could take the judgment if you could just provide the service: non-prescription syringe purchase experience at Arizona pharmacies, 2018.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies are important for health access by rural populations and those who do not have optimum access to the health system, because they provide myriad health services and are found in most communities. This includes the sale of non-prescription syringes, a practice that is legal in the USA in all but two states. However, people who inject drugs (PWID) face significant barriers accessing sterile syringes, particularly in states without laws allowing syringe services programming. To our knowledge, no recent studies of pharmacy-based syringe purchase experience have been conducted in communities that are both rural and urban, and none in the Southwestern US. This study seeks to understand the experience of retail pharmacy syringe purchase in Arizona by PWID. METHODS: An interview study was conducted between August and December 2018 with 37 people living in 3 rural and 2 urban Arizona counties who identified as current or former users of injection drugs. Coding was both a priori and emergent, focusing on syringe access through pharmacies, pharmacy experiences generally, experiences of stigma, and recommendations for harm reduction services delivered by pharmacies. RESULTS: All participants reported being refused syringe purchase at pharmacies. Six themes emerged about syringe purchase: (1) experience of stigma and judgment by pharmacy staff, (2) feelings of internalized stigma, (3) inconsistent sales outcomes at the same pharmacy or pharmacy chain, (4) pharmacies as last resort for syringes, (5) fear of arrest for syringe possession, and (6) health risks resulting from syringe refusal. CONCLUSIONS: Non-prescription syringe sales in community pharmacies are a missed opportunity to improve the health of PWID by reducing syringe sharing and reuse. Yet, current pharmacy syringe sales refusal and stigmatization by staff suggest that pharmacy-level interventions will be necessary to impact pharmacy practice. Lack of access to sterile syringes reinforces health risk behaviors among PWID. Retail syringe sales at pharmacies remain an important, yet barrier-laden, element of a comprehensive public health response to reduce HIV and hepatitis C among PWID. Future studies should test multilevel evidence-based interventions to decrease staff discrimination and stigma and increase syringe sales.

Seeking lower prices where providers are consolidated: an examination of market and policy strategies.

The ongoing consolidation between and among hospitals and physicians tends to raise prices for health care services, which poses increasing challenges for private purchasers and payers. This article examines strategies that these purchasers and payers can pursue to combat provider leverage to increase prices. It also examines opportunities for governments to either support or constrain these strategies. In response to higher prices, payers are developing new approaches to benefit and network design, some of which may be effective in moderating prices and, in some cases, volume. These approaches interact with public policy because regulation can either facilitate or constrain them. Federal and state governments also have opportunities to limit consolidation's effect on prices by developing antitrust policies that better address current market environments and by fostering the development of physician organizations that can increase competition and contract with payers under shared-savings approaches. The success of these private- and public-sector initiatives likely will determine whether governments shift from supporting competition to directly regulating payment rates.

An empirical analysis of aftermarket transactions by hospitals.

Almost all U.S. hospitals procure their equipment through group purchasing organizations ("GPOs"). Some hospitals subject the prices secured by GPOs to a second round of competition in an "aftermarket," in which vendors both on and off the GPO contract compete for the hospital's business. To measure the extent of the potential benefit to hospitals from another round of competition, we analyzed a database of approximately 8,100 aftermarket transactions for hospital capital equipment. The transactions data suggest that hospitals were able to achieve average savings of approximately 10 to 14 percent across the entire database (2001 through 2010) and a savings of 15 percent on average for 2010 data. These savings may be attributable to many factors, including the compensation structure of GPOs.