ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2017
Drug pricing and reimbursement decision making systems in Mongolia.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Legislation and current developments in adverse drug reaction reporting in Mongolia: how far are we?Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of falsified, counterfeit and substandard medicines in a low-middle income country.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Rationing for medicines by health care providers in Indonesia National Health Insurance System at hospital setting: a qualitative study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is essential to allocate available resources equitably in order to ensure accessibility and affordability of essential medicines, especially in less fortunate nations with limited health funding. Currently, transparent and evidence based research is required to evaluate decision making regarding drug registration, drug pricing and reimbursement processes in Mongolia.
objectiveTo assess the drug reimbursement system and discuss challenges faced by policy-makers and stakeholders.
methodsThe study has examined Mongolian administrative documents and directives for stakeholders and analysed published statistics. Experts and decision-makers were interviewed about the drug pricing and reimbursement processes in Mongolia.
resultsDecisions regarding Mongolian drug registration were based on commonly used criteria of quality, safety, efficacy plus some economic considerations. A total of 11.32 billion Mongolian National Tugrugs (MNT) [5.6 million United States Dollars (USD)] or 12.1% of total health expenditure was spent on patient reimbursement of essential drugs. The highest reimbursed drugs with respect to cost in 2014 were the cardiovascular drug group. Health insurance is compulsory for all citizens; in addition all insured patients have access to reimbursed drugs. However, the decision making process, in particular the level of reimbursement was limited by various barriers, including lack of evidence based data regarding efficacy and comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of drugs and decisions regarding reimbursement.
conclusionsDrug registration, pricing and reimbursement process in Mongolia show an increasing trend of drug registration and reimbursement rates, along with lack of transparency. Limited available data indicate that more evidence-based research studies are required in Mongolia to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of drug pricing and reimbursement policies.
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.