Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 1301–1310 | Cite as

Patients’ knowledge and attitude towards therapeutic reference pricing system in Slovenia

  • Nika Marđetko
  • Mitja KosEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Background The therapeutic reference pricing (TRP) in Slovenia was implemented for proton pump inhibitors in 2013 and for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and lipid-lowering medicines in 2014. Objective The study aimed to assess patients’ knowledge and attitude towards the TRP system. Moreover, the patients’ willingness to pay was evaluated for patients who rejected the substitution of a current medicine within a therapeutic class by the reference medicine for which no co-payment is needed. Setting Invitation of patients to participate in a survey and filling in the first part of the questionnaire was run in the community pharmacies in Slovenia. The second part of the questionnaire was filled in at patients’ home. Method A representative sample of 676 patients that had been prescribed at least one medicine from the three therapeutic classes was surveyed. The survey was carried out from 15th May to 15th June 2014 in 40 community pharmacies with the help of the pharmacists, who filled in the first part of the questionnaire in the presence of the patients. The second part of the questionnaire was filled in by 475 patients at home and returned by prepaid mail. Main outcome measure Patients’ knowledge of and attitude to the TRP system implemented into Slovenian health care practice. Results Most of the statements describing patient’ rights and duties within the TRP system were known by approximately 50 % of the patients. Patients were inhomogeneous in their view about the necessity and benefits of the TRP system, most of them regarded it as an unnecessary burden. Among 50.4 % of the patients who were required to copay for their medicine, 46.7 % accepted and 3.7 % rejected co-payment. The average co-payment was € 6.92, while the expressed average willingness to co-pay was € 10.4 per 3 months of therapy. Conclusion Our results indicate that the implementation of the TRP system and potential upgrades represent a significant challenge for the patients.

Keywords

Co-payment Patient attitude Patient knowledge Questionnaire Slovenia Therapeutic reference pricing Willingness to pay 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank: The management and pharmacy staff of the following Public pharmaceutical institutes Zasavske Lekarne Trbolje, Lekarna Velenje, Pomurske lekarne, Gorenjske lekarne, Mestne lekarne, Lekarna Ljubljana, Dolenjske lekarne, Lekarna Ptuj, Lekarna Maribor, Goriške lekarne, Celjske lekarne and privately owned pharmacies Lekarna Apoteka pri Teatru and Lekarna Dravlje for the survey execution. Slovenian Pharmaceutical Society for the financial support. Wholesaler of medicines and medical devices–Kemofarmacija for the data on medicine prices and co-payments.

Funding

The study was performed as part of academic research at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy. Funding support for the survey was provided by the Slovenian Pharmaceutical Society.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11096_2016_370_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (340 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 339 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Puig-Junoy J. The impact of generic reference pricing interventions in the statin market. Health Policy. 2007;84(1):14–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vrijens F, Van de Voorde C, Farfan-Portet MI, Vander Stichele R. Patient socioeconomic determinants for the choice of the cheapest molecule within a cluster: evidence from Belgian prescription data. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(3):315–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia. Therapeutic reference pricing system in Slovenia 2013 [cited 2016 Jun 5]. http://www.zzzs.si/zzzs/internet/zzzs.nsf/o/6A6BD0CD7CB327B3C1257BD900451900?OpenDocument.
  4. 4.
    Schneeweiss S. Reference drug programs: effectiveness and policy implications. Health Policy. 2007;81(1):17–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneeweiss S, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Maclure M, Dormuth C, Soumerai SB. Outcomes of reference pricing for angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(11):822–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia [cited 2016 Jun 5]. http://www.zzzs.si/index.html.
  7. 7.
    Wallace LS. A view of health care around the world. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(1):84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rules on inclusion of medicines on the list (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 35/2013) 2013 [cited 2016 Jun 5]. https://www.uradnilist.si/1/content?id=112932.
  9. 9.
    Fiscal Balance Act. Legal information system of Slovenia; 2012 [cited 2016 Jun 5]. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO6388#.
  10. 10.
    Dunne SS, Shannon B, Cullen W, Dunne CP. Beliefs, perceptions and behaviours of GPs towards generic medicines. Fam Pract. 2014;31(4):467–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heikkila R, Mantyselka P, Hartikainen-Herranen K, Ahonen R. Customers’ and physicians’ opinions of and experiences with generic substitution during the first year in Finland. Health Policy. 2007;82(3):366–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dylst P, Vulto A, Simoens S. Demand-side policies to encourage the use of generic medicines: an overview. Expert Rev Pharm Out. 2013;13(1):59–72.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Multimedia portal RTVSLO. Does health care become inaccessible or not? 2013 [cited 2016 Jun 5]. http://www.rtvslo.si/mmc-priporoca/zdravstvo-vse-bolj-nedostopno-pa-je-res/318648.
  14. 14.
    Quintal C, Mendes P. Underuse of generic medicines in Portugal: an empirical study on the perceptions and attitudes of patients and pharmacists. Health Policy. 2012;104(1):61–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dunne S, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W. Patient perceptions of generic medicines: a mixed-methods study. Patient. 2014;7(2):177–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Himmel W, Simmenroth-Nayda A, Niebling W, Ledig T, Jansen RD, Kochen MM, et al. What do primary care patients think about generic drugs? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;43(10):472–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kersnik J, Peklar J. Attitudes of Slovene general practitioners towards generic drug prescribing and comparison with international studies. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2006;31(6):577–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bayoumi AM. The measurement of contingent valuation for health economics. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(11):691–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johannesson M. The contingent-valuation method. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(4):311–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blomquist CH, Blumenshein K, Johannesson M. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environ Resour Econ. 2009;43(4):473–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Voorhis CRW, Morgan BL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample size. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2007;3(2):43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rathe J, Larsen P, Andersen M, Paulsen M, Jarbol D, Thomsen J, et al. Associations between generic substitution and patients’ attitudes, beliefs and experiences. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(10):1827–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heikkila R, Mantyselka P, Ahonen R. Do people regard cheaper medicines effective? Population survey on public opinion of generic substitution in Finland. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(2):185–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies. Pharmacies in Slovenia [cited 2016 May 20]. http://www.lzs.si/Uporabno/Statistika/Lekarne/tabid/110/Default.aspx.
  25. 25.
    Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, McLachlan A, Nguyen TA, Al-Tamimi SK, Ibrahim MI, et al. The experiences of implementing generic medicine policy in eight countries: a review and recommendations for a successful promotion of generic medicine use. Saudi Pharm J. 2014;22(6):491–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kobayashi E, Karigome H, Sakurada T, Satoh N, Ueda S. Patients’ attitudes towards generic drug substitution in Japan. Health Policy. 2011;99(1):60–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forum of International Research and Development Pharmaceutical Companies EIG. Therapeutic reference pricing is harmful to the patients 2013 [cited 2016 May 15]. http://www.firdpc.com/sl/Dogodki_in_novice/Terapevtske_skupine_zdravil/.
  28. 28.
    Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies. Therapeutic reference pricing will bring a lot of problems and no savings 2013 [cited 2016 May 15]. http://www.lekzbor.si/Aktualno/Sporocilazajavnost/tabid/133/smid/669/ArticleId/89/Default.aspx.
  29. 29.
    Rathe J, Sondergaard J, Jarbol DE, Hallas J, Andersen M. Patients’ concern about their medicine after a generic switch: a combined cross-sectional questionnaire and register study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(9):965–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Toverud EL, Roise AK, Hogstad G, Wabo I. Norwegian patients on generic antihypertensive drugs: a qualitative study of their own experiences. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(1):33–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Babar ZU, Stewart J, Reddy S, Alzaher W, Vareed P, Yacoub N, et al. An evaluation of consumers’ knowledge, perceptions and attitudes regarding generic medicines in Auckland. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(4):440–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bulsara C, McKenzie A, Sanfilippo F, Holman CD, Emery JE. ‘Not the full Monty’: a qualitative study of seniors’ perceptions of generic medicines in Western Australia. Aust J Prim Health. 2010;16(3):240–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dylst P, Vulto A, Simoens S. The impact of reference-pricing systems in Europe: a literature review and case studies. Expert Rev Pharm Out. 2011;11(6):729–37.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Galizzi MM, Ghislandi S, Miraldo M. Effects of reference pricing in pharmaceutical markets: a review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(1):17–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dylst P, Vulto A, Simoens S. Reference pricing systems in Europe: characteristics and consequences. Generics Biosimilar Initiat J. 2012;1(3–4):127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Analysis of the Faculty of pharmacy—assessed by data in National database on outpatient prescriptions for the year 2013–HIIS.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Institute of Public Health. Health care statistics 2013 [cited 2016 may 20]. http://www.nijz.si/sites/www.nijz.si/files/uploaded/publikacije/letopisi/2013/7_ambulantno_predpisana_zdravila_18.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations