ArticlePloS one2014
Using the WHO essential medicines list to assess the appropriateness of insurance coverage decisions: a case study of the Croatian national medicine reimbursement list.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of alignment of the reimbursement medicines list for children in Albania with the WHO essential medicines list for children.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- Access and use of WHO essential medicines in Italy.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- National adaptation and implementation of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines: A qualitative evidence synthesis.PLoS medicine · 2022Review
- Shedding Light on the Main Characteristics and Perspectives of Romanian Medicinal Oxygen Market.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Non-scientific classification of Chinese herbal medicine as dietary supplement.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2017Article
- Quantitative evaluation of essential medicines lists: the South African case study.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- FIRST BH COCHRANE SYMPOSIUM HELD.Materia socio-medica · 2016Article
- Analysis of evidence supporting the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina reimbursement medicines lists: role of the WHO Essential Medicines List, Cochrane systematic reviews and technology assessment reports.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
- Article
- Be rich or don't be sick: estimating Vietnamese patients' risk of falling into destitution.SpringerPlus · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the use of the WHO EML as a tool with which to evaluate the evidence base for the medicines on the national insurance coverage list of the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance (CIHI).
methodsMedicines from 9 ATC categories with highest expenditures from 2012 CIHI Basic List (n = 509) were compared with 2011 WHO EML for adults (n = 359). For medicines with specific indication listed only in CIHI Basic List we assessed whether there was evidence in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews questioning their efficacy and safety.
resultsThe two lists shared 188 medicines (52.4% of WHO EML and 32.0% of CIHI list). CIHI Basic List had 254 medicines and 33 combinations of these medicines which were not on the WHO EML, plus 14 medicines rejected and 20 deleted from WHO EML by its Evaluation Committee. For deleted medicines, we could obtain data that showed 2,965,378 prescriptions issued to 617,684 insured patients, and the cost of approximately € 41.2 million for 2012 and the first half of 2013, when the CIHI Basic List was in effect. For CIHI List-only medicines with a specific indication (n = 164 or 57.1% of the analyzed set), fewer benefits or more serious side-effects than other medicines were found for 17 (10.4%) and not enough evidence for recommendations for specific indication for 21 (12.8%) medicines in Cochrane systematic reviews.
conclusionsNational health care policy should use high-quality evidence in deciding on adding new medicines and reassessing those already present on national medicines lists, in order to rationalize expenditures and ensure wider and better access to medicines. The WHO EML and recommendations from its Evaluation Committee may be useful tools in this quality assurance process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.