Into the Future and Back in Time: Perspectives on the Field of Applied Health Economics and Outcomes Research
In August 2014, I had the pleasure and honor of recording a fascinating podcast with Dr. Joe Jackson, Program Director for Applied Economics and Outcomes Research at Jefferson’s School of Population Health located within Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA.
This podcast is part of HealthEconomics.Com’s CONNECTED COMMUNITYTM Podcast Series whereby we interview significant thought-leaders who are changing how we implement healthcare value assessment to improve patient care to across the globe.
You may listen to the Podcast “Into the Future and Back in Time: Perspectives on the Field of Applied Health Economics and Outcomes Research“ by clicking here or on the Play button below. Today’s blog posting summarizes our discussion.
In his current role, Dr. Jackson is responsible for the School’s Master of Science degree program in Applied Health Economics and Outcomes Research (MS-AHEOR) and for the AHEOR specialization in the School’s PhD program in Population Health Sciences. These programs ground students in the fundamentals of AHEOR, with emphasis on applications to everyday work settings. Joe has also spent 30+ years in the pharma industry, and was one of the earliest trained PhDs with a specialization in health economics, outcomes research, and applied pharmacoeconomics in the United States. He’s truly a leader in our field, and shared his views on where the Applied Health Economics and Outcomes Research field is going, both domestically in the United States and elsewhere, in Europe, India, and other emerging markets.
Joe recently published an article entitled “Population Health and the Assessment of Value” in the esteemed peer-reviewed forum for real-world evidence in benefit design journal, American Health & Drug Benefits, focused on audiences such as payers, purchasers, policymakers, and other healthcare stakeholders. You may view the article online here.
Below is my interview with Joe. Listen to the original podcast here.
[Patti Peeples (PP)/HealthEconomics.Com] Please describe how the perspective of value in healthcare has developed in the United States, and how this led to the development of the field of Applied Health Economics and Outcomes Research and Evaluative Clinical Sciences.
[Dr. Jackson] In the United States, our focus on healthcare expenditures has increased substantially over the past fifty years. Let’s take a look at some health policy history. When Medicare & Medicaid were signed into law in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson, the US spent just about 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare.
Today, we spend approximately 20% of all goods & services produced by US economy on healthcare. The intensity of these cost vs. value discussions is growing with each passing decade.
But where did it start? During the 1960s and 70s, the discussion of value and outcomes in healthcare began to percolate, and occurred most notably in the arena of chronic renal disease management. The medical establishment, the government, and society began grappling with the choices of two efficacious and costly treatments that were also life-saving: kidney transplantation or a lifetime of hemodialysis. In October 1972, Medicare, which up to this point had been solely providing benefits to elderly individuals aged 65 years or older, was extended to the disabled by the Social Security Amendments. A last-minute provision declared that persons with chronic renal disease and who required either hemodialysis or kidney transplantation “shall be deemed to be disabled” for purposes of Medicare Parts A and B. These major events ushered in the well-known cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per life year saved which has endured for many decades (although now we use quality-adjusted life years [QALY]).
(Editor’s note: Peter Neumann has published some interesting work on the $50,000/QALY ratio, and suggests that this figure is somewhat inexact, and may be somewhat of an urban legend (Neumann 2014). For more on the history of the ESRD, view this article in NEJM and a November 1962 article in LIFE magazine, “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies, Medical miracle and a moral burden of a small committee; for additional information on ESRD cost-effectiveness approaches, see Winkelmeyer et al 2002 review here. )
Another event really increased the focus on the costs of medical care, and this was the passage of TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) in 1982, during the Reagan administration. This new payment scheme was intended to control Medicare expenditures, which had been rising an average of 19% each year for inpatient care, since 1979. TEFRA was a significant change in both the way hospitals were reimbursed, and thus it resulted in drastic changes toward patient treatment approaches. TEFRA moved the entire Medicare system away from a “cost plus” reimbursement, toward a “case-based” prospective payment system involving Diagnosis Related Group (DRG). DRGs were based on a particular diagnosis, and the hospital received a specified rate of reimbursement for the DRG upon the patient’s discharge, regardless of how much the individual’s care cost the hospital
(Editor’s Note: This article provides some history on the development of outcomes research and the US governmental agencies responsible for health technology assessment, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s.)
Now that we understand major health policy and value initiatives, let’s look at the development of health economics and outcomes research and the term “evaluative clinical sciences”. There were a a few events that sparked this changing. Firstly, Avedis Donabedian published the 1973 book, Aspects of Medical Care Administration: Specifying Requirements for Health Care (Commonwealth Fund Publications) in which he characterized the US healthcare system as a conceptual model that provided a framework as structure, process, outcome. This provided a systematic way to evaluate healthcare in the United States and was monumental in how we looked at the interrelationship between inputs and outputs in healthcare, encompassing many pivotal areas including interventions, costs, and clinical/patient outcomes.
Then in 1994, two Professors of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Massachusetts named Howard Hiatt and Lee Goldman, published a one page commentary in the journal Nature, entitled “Making Medicine More Scientific”, calling for new type of medical training to improve the quality of medical care and scientific advances. This short but crucial commentary was extremely significant and both of these events helped bring in an era of the evaluation of clinical science and informed our scientific assessment of value.
(Editor’s note: For more on the career of Dr. Howard Hiatt, view here.)
[PP] So many disciplines and areas of study fall under the “big tent” of healthcare value assessment. How do evidence-based medicine and health technology assessment play a role in healthcare value assessment?
[Dr. Jackson] We need a bit history here, too. In 1938, the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed by the United States Congress, giving the authority to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Note that efficacy or effectiveness of drugs was not part of the area of oversight. It wasn’t until 1962 that the FDA was given regulatory authority over the efficacy of drug products, as a result of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment.
The Kefauver-Harris Amendment was revolutionary from a regulatory perspective, as it gave FDA the authority to demand sufficient proof of a drug product’s safety and efficacy prior to receiving approval to market the item in the United State. The history of the establishment of the FDA may be viewed here.
It was during this time of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment that the notion of randomized clinical trials for efficacy was introduced, and the discussions centered around how to generate sufficient evidence for decision-making. David Sackett and others were instrumental in getting medical people to pay attention to the evidence, and they coined the term Evidence-Based Medicine. A current-day example of the use of evidence-based medicine would be the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) clinical practice guidelines (CPG). We do not yet have a good track record of letting evidence guide our healthcare decision-making, however. A recent analysis found that of the 52 guidelines published by the ACC/AHA, only 20% of the recommendations were supported by multiple randomized controlled trials and demonstrate very effective treatment. Clearly, we have a lot of work to do in the demonstration and use of evidence in our decision-making for healthcare in the area of cardiac interventions and beyond.
However, evidence assessment is not without its challenges. Problems often exist in evidence evaluation when one has to rely on surrogate markers, rather than more definitive endpoints like mortality. This was observed in the area of anti-arrhythmics, as well as the use of niacin for managing dyslipidemia. As we go forward in relying more on well-designed evidence assessments, we should remember three very important lessons:
- Association does not equal causation;
- Be careful of surrogate endpoints;
- We should learn from our mistakes.
[PP] How you think the Affordable Care Act will affect how we conduct evidence assessments and what effect is the ACA having on the field of health economics and outcomes research?
[Dr. Jackson] I cover much of this in my recently published article entitled “Population Health and the Assessment of Value”, in the August 2014 issue of the American Health & Drug Benefits journal. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) represents a philosophical shift from component care (goods/services delivered in healthcare but are separate from outcomes patients experience), and will encourage us to focus even more strongly on patient care, outcomes, and costs associated with achieving a better health status. This kind of movement is built upon the Triple Aim, developed by Berwick and colleagues. The Triple Aim includes some key measurements: define the population, collect data over time, distinguish between outcomes and processes, and distinguish between population and project measures. In other words, the intent is to make our system more one focused on health, rather than health care. The ACA has already led to a quite a rethinking on how we are organized for healthcare.
Let’s look at an example of this, with a story of Jeffrey Brenner, an internist, working at Cooper Medical Center in Camden, New Jersey in a busy university practice, seeing 30-40 patients /day and very little time to spend with a patient or to learn how disease developed or how it should be managed in his patients. Brenner struck out on his own and formed the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers. This work was so revolutionary that he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for $625,000 and he has provided some key learnings from his approach:
- Real-Time Data: Data must be collected and disseminated contemporaneously (e.g., real-time analytics) with patient care, so that it can facilitate guidance and affect how the individual patient is treated and managed.
- Redesign: Healthcare must be redesigned, taking ideas from the industrial manufacturers. Brenner borrowed an example from Toyota, whereby engineers actually work on the floor with the assembly line workers, so that they can better understand the process and automate what they can. Brenner believes this approach is needed in healthcare.
- Engagement: Providers must talk with the patient and facilitate the patient communicating back to the providers. Brenner’s team works as a unit, talking to the patent. They employ patient navigators who listen to patient to explain their problem, then they communicate a care plan to the patient in a way that can be understood to improve health status.
A video of Dr. Jeffrey Brenner describing his approach can be viewed here:
[PP] Can you contrast how technology assessment (HTA) is undertaken in the US versus other major industrialized countries?
[Dr. Jackson] HTA in the United States is still somewhat of a cottage industry. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) does majority of official government research activity in the US. This organization used to be called the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) until the end of fiscal year 2005, when there was a pushback in Congress about whether this Agency determines healthcare policy (and so “policy” was removed from their name). AHRQ conducts outcomes research, because Congress keeps them from including cost in the equation. Therefore, in the US, cost-effectiveness and health technology assessment activities take place at a local (i.e., a non-national) level, such as at a health plan level. This is in sharp contrast to the rest of the industrialized world where the government plays a pivotal role in HTA. For example, the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom started around time of World War II, delivering health services as part of a government-provided activity. About 15 years ago, the NHS started NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), and they conduct HTA on an industrial scale, including formal cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions. I want to emphasize “effectiveness”, because NICE starts with evidence, then based on the evidence they run a cost analysis. NICE has done many of these cost-effectiveness analyses, and it figures into what interventions they recommend or don’t recommend.
(Editor’s note: NICE develops four types of products, including clinical guidelines; technology assessments for interventions (drugs, devices) and diagnostic tests; guidance on safety and efficacy of surgical and diagnostic procedures; and public health guidance for health promotion and disease prevention).
There are numerous HTA groups operating at the national level, including Germany, France, Australia, Canada, and most industrialized countries.
(Editor’s note: For a country- and region-specific decision-making processes for market access, visit the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Global Health Care Systems Road Map database.)
[PP] With respect to the United States assessment of new medical interventions that are – on face value – a high cost, can you discuss the drug, Sovaldi, for Hepatitis C and how this intervention is being viewed from a cost-effectiveness standpoint?
[Dr. Jackson] Sovaldi is a remarkable new drug, truly a breakthrough therapy for hepatitis C. So much so, Judy Woodruff of PBS focused on an examination of this drug in a program in April 2014 (listen here). She profiled a women who had been battling Hepatitis C for ten years, and her mother had died of the disease as well. This woman was taking interferon and Ribavirin, both of which had significant side effects and were somewhat ineffective. This individual was able to be enrolled in a trial and received treatment with Sovaldi. Not only was she able to eliminate the disease but she was free of the side effects and administration challenges associated with the other treatments. Her whole life was changed.
The question for society, health economists, payers, and patients is: “How much is that worth?” The pricing of Sovaldi comes to around $84,000 per patient, for a 12-week course of treatment. In prisons and other arenas where Hepatitis C is prevalent, the total costs associated with treating this disease will be extraordinarily high. Yet, we see very good outcomes, perhaps unprecedented outcomes, with Sovaldi. The effectiveness is fantastic, approaching 90% cure rate. And one doesn’t need any concomitant therapies with Sovaldi. Clearly it is effective, but is it cost-effective? I guess that depends upon your perspective.
The media has been filled with various views on the near-term and long-term cost impact of Sovaldi. We do indeed know that budgets will need to expand to accommodate for Sovaldi’s costs. The pricing of this drug and its competitors will be extremely interesting to watch. Moreover, it is fascinating to observe the pricing of Sovaldi around the world. It was recently announced that Gilead will offer Sovaldi for Hepatitis C in India for $900/patient a news report just came out from Gilead that they were making it available for $900/entire course in India as well as Egypt. This is in an effort to address criticisms of selling life-saving medications in poor countries, often where these types of diseases are extremely prevalent. It’s extremely interesting to watch, and one most also consider that even though the drug in India is priced at about 10% of the US pricing, it still may be similarly unattainable when viewed through the lens of purchasing power parity. Stay tuned.
[PP] How have patient registries and real world evidence changed our healthcare evidence landscape, and where do you see the field of health economics and outcomes research going?
[Dr. Jackson] Real-world evidence and registries will likely be at the core of how our system will be redesigned. The best example of the effective use of registries for real-world effectiveness examination is by Kaiser Permanente. It is such a pivotal part of their mission that the CEO of Kaiser Permanente has been quoted that they sell care by the package, not the piece. A case in point is how the run their registries. I heard a talk by Sharon Levine, MD, Associate Executive Medical Director of The Permanente Medical Group, whereby she described their dozen or more patient registries spanning spine disease, myocardial infarction, among others. What is interesting is how they use this process and these data to examine the whole patient and improve patient care. The patient will have a particular condition which is their “entry pass”, so to speak, into the registry, but patient observation is not limited to that “entry condition”. Instead, patient observation and data collection spans the entire or whole person. This is really quite revolutionary and I believe where will should be and are going with healthcare.
(Editor’s note: Congressional testimony report on the use of The Permanente Medical Group’s databases for drug safety may be viewed here and a presentation by Dr. Levine on The Kaiser Permanente Experience on Comparative Effectiveness Research in an Integrated System may be accessed here.)
The ACA coupled with required computer and information technology provisions associated with collecting patient data are making it clear that our providers, payers, and patients want electronic medical records as a tool and we want to be able to follow people over time, and across providers. I think that if you look at many of the things I’ve addressed in today’s podcast, including the Triple Aim, Jeffrey Brenner’s experience, the Kaiser Permanente approach, and more as alluded to in my article, then you will see that these are all examples that we need to follow to get to a better healthcare state. These are all incredible – and credible – ways to attain a better health system, and get away from a system focused on sick care.
For those of you who would like more opportunity to interact with Dr. Jackson, visit the Master of Science degree program in Applied Health Economics and Outcomes Research (MS-AHEOR) or the PhD program in Population Health Sciences at the Jefferson School for Population Health, located at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA, or email him at firstname.lastname@example.org
Achieving Market Access in India – Are You Hitting the Mark? An Interview with Marksman Healthcare Solutions CEO Dr. Amit Dang
It’s well-accepted that the Indian pharmaceuticals market cannot be ignored. India will be one of the top 10 sales markets by 2020, fueled by the rapid growth in its population and economy. Commensurately, India is experiencing expansion within its middle-class population, who are increasingly able to afford western medicines. Like the rest of the world, the demographics of India’s population are ageing, and it is anticipated that demand for drugs within the cardiovascular, central nervous system, and other chronic diseases such as diabetes will escalate. The total market is expected to rise to a value of approximately US$50 billion by 2020 (Source: PwC).
According to McKinsey & Company’s report “India Pharma 2020: Propelling Access and Acceptance, Realising True Potential”, several characteristics make the India pharma market unique, including the domination of branded generics (70-80% of the retail market), strong position of local players in formulation development capabilities, low price points, and intense competition. And while India may be ranked 10th globally in terms of sales, it is within the top 3 in terms of volume.
The India pharma marketplace is ripe with challenges and opportunities. The legislative arena is complex, the competitive field is challenging and intense, and the value messaging to decision-makers and payers is multi-faceted. We spoke with Dr. Amit Dang, MD, Founder and CEO of MarksMan Healthcare Solutions based in India to get insight into this unique market. MarksMan Healthcare Solutions is an international knowledge-based Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) consulting firm focused on the value of real-world data to maximize the opportunities for pharma and medical device products during a decision making process. Marksman HealthCare Solutions comprises a team of medical professionals, evidence analysts, experienced medical writers, economic modelers, HEOR consultants and project managers who provide cost-effective solutions to achieve optimal access for products in the India marketplace.
My interview with Dr. Dang is below.
[HealthEconomics.Com] Please describe the India healthcare system, including overall health expenditures, percent of GDP, universal vs private payer healthcare provision, out-of-pocket spending, and major public and private stakeholders.
[Dr. Dang] India has a dual system of health care: a public tax-based sector where the health care providers are salaried by the government, and a private free-of-service based sector where the money is paid out-of-pocket by individual households.
The public health system in India consists of state-owned health care facilities ranging from sub-centres and PHCs (public health centres) at the peripheral level to specialty hospitals at district and state levels to super-specialty referral hospitals such as AIIMS (All India Institutes of Medical Sciences), government-run medical college hospitals and specialty care hospitals. Some of these institutions are controlled by the central government, and some by the state governments. The public healthcare in India comes under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which doles out national health schemes from time-to-time. Preventive healthcare, maternal and child health services and nutritional services in India are largely provided by the public sector.
The private healthcare sector is structured similarly, but is more concentrated in larger cities and towns than in the periphery. Though the private healthcare sector is significantly more expensive, it is generally viewed to be more popular than the public healthcare sector. The reasons for this include poorer quality, excessive crowding, an unfortunate disregard to hygiene and lack of qualified staff in public hospitals. Because of the government’s failure to deliver quality care, there has been a rapid expansion in the private sector. It is estimated that the private sector accounts for 93% of all hospitals (which was only 8% in 1947), 64% of all beds, and 80%-85% of all doctors.
The majority of the institutions providing healthcare in India practice allopathy (i.e., the “usual” practice of medicine, vs. the homeopathic practice), but the traditional systems of medicine (including Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, and Naturopathy) are also popular, especially in the periphery.
The total health expenditure (% of GDP) in India was 3.87 as of 2011, out of which public and private sector expenditure (% of GDP) was 1.20 and 2.67 respectively. The comparable rates for public health are 1.5% in Sri Lanka, 2.7% in China, and 3% in Thailand.
The public health expenditure consists of recurrent and capital spending from government (central and local) budgets, external borrowings and grants (including donations from international agencies and nongovernmental organizations), and social (or compulsory) health insurance funds. Private health expenditure includes direct household (out-of-pocket) spending, private insurance, charitable donations, and direct service payments by private corporations.
In 2010, out-of-pocket expenses account for 78% of the total healthcare expenditure. This is among the highest in the world, and are much higher than other countries (Thailand: 25%, China: 44%, and Sri Lanka: 55%). Many families are driven below poverty line every year by large medical expenses.
To summarize, most Indians seeking health care have two options: a public health system that is almost entirely free but of poor quality, and a largely unregulated private health system that provides quality healthcare service but is highly expensive, and often indulges in inappropriate or unnecessary diagnostic or treatment modalities.
[HealthEconomics.Com] How is the India reimbursement and pricing environment different or the same as the United States and Europe?
[Dr. Dang] In the US and Europe, most medicines payments are made by the state or health insurance institutions. In contrast, in India most pharmaceutical expenditure is out-of-pocket. This creates a different dynamic for policy enforcement. USA and Europe have clear-cut guidelines for reimbursement and pricing. However, such guidelines are lacking in the Indian set-up.
[HealthEconomics.Com] What are the major pharmaceutical regulations in India as it pertains to pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement? Who are the major organizations or regulatory bodies that are involved in setting prices and determining reimbursement?
[Dr. Dang] As said before, there is no clear-cut guidelines pertaining to reimbursement and pricing in India. However, in this context, two autonomous authorities function independently of each other: the NPPA and the IRDA.
The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is the government organization which is responsible for setting and revising the prices and to enforce the availability of drugs and formulations in India. It also monitors the prices of decontrolled drugs in order to keep them at reasonable levels. The organization is also responsible for recovering amounts overcharged by manufacturers for the controlled drugs from the consumers.
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) is a state-controlled, autonomous apex statutory body which regulates and develops the insurance industry in India. The IRDA is responsible for regulating reimbursements pertaining to the health insurance sector.
The state-controlled insurance schemes such as Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) have independent reimbursement plans and do not fall under the purview of the IRDA.
[HealthEconomics.Com] What are the major hurdles or goals to reach when obtaining favorable pricing for one’s drug product? Does this differ for certain drugs like orphan products?
[Dr. Dang] As such there is no concept of favorable drug pricing in India as the drug pricing is governed by the Drug (Prices Control) Order (DPCO). Recently, with the objective to improvise and endow with the basic health care and availability of basic medicines at an affordable price across the country, the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, notified the Drug (Prices Control) Order 2013 (“DPCO 2013″) in May 2013, which may fluctuate the pricing of 348 essential medicines. The DPCO 2013 provides formula for the calculation of ceiling price of a scheduled formulation as follows:
- Firstly, the Average Price to Retailer of the scheduled formulation i.e. P(s) would be calculated as below:
AVERAGE PRICE TO RETAILER, P(S) = (Sum of prices to retailer of all the brands and generic versions of the medicine having market share more than or equal to one percent of the total market turnover on the basis of moving annual turnover of that medicine) / (Total number of such brands and generic versions of the medicine having market share more than or equal to one percent of total market turnover on the basis of moving annual turnover for that medicine.)
- Thereafter, the ceiling price of the scheduled formulation i.e. P(c) would be calculated as below:
P(c) = P(s). (1+M/100), where P(s) = Average Price to Retailer for the same strength and dosage of the medicine as calculated in step 1 above. M = % Margin to retailer and its value =16
Currently, drug developers in India are receiving no formal incentives from the Government and hence are more focused on developing affordable drugs for more common diseases such as oral insulin, statins for preventing or slowing the progression of cardiovascular disease, vaccines and antibiotics for a number of preventable infectious diseases, etc. Hence, patients with rare diseases in India have to rely on imported drugs from western countries which makes these treatments (even when available) unaffordable. Some Indian Organizations like Organization for Rare Diseases India (ORDI) aim to work between the Government of India and the Pharma/Biotech/Diagnostic industry to enact an Orphan Drugs Act (ODA) that will create incentives for orphan drug developers. Further, a Government frame work is required that is conducive in enabling the manufacturing of orphan drugs in India.
[HealthEconomics.Com] What is the need and acceptance for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) on attaining optimal reimbursement?
[Dr. Dang] As per the DPCO 2013, the price to retailer of a new drug, not available in domestic market, will be fixed by the Government of India on the principles of “Pharmacoeconomics” of the new drug, on the recommendation of a Standing Committee of Experts. As HEOR is still in infancy in India, this can be considered as a silver lining in the dark cloud as Government of India is willing to accept principle of pharmacoeconomics for optimal reimbursement on newer drug therapies.
[HealthEconomics.Com] Are risk-sharing arrangements or other methods used to attain market access?
[Dr. Dang] Risk-sharing agreements, under which payers and pharma manufacturers agree to link payment for drugs to health outcomes achieved, rather than the volume of products usedoffer an appealing payment model for pharmaceuticals. In future, the risk sharing concept may be in place. The Government is willing to accept the principles of pharmacoeconomics as per the DPCO 2013.
[HealthEconomics.Com] Is real-world evidence research or are observational studies important in the India marketplace?
[Dr. Dang] Real-world evidence (RWE) infuses clinical and commercial decisions with the insights and scientific proof points crucial to success in today’s healthcare environment. The Indian market is catching up with the principle of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR), thereby demonstrating the value of real-world insights in healthcare decision making.
[HealthEconomics.Com] Is there use of electronic medical records or insurance claims analyses or economic modelling to attain market access?
[Dr. Dang] The use of electronic medical records is gradually developing in India. There are government-sponsored HMIS (Health Management Information System) projects in some of the Indian states which have come up in the last decade. Electronic recording of patients’ information is being practiced in some major corporate hospitals, but these cater to only to a small percent of the country’s population. The Tata Memorial Centre, the national comprehensive cancer centre for the prevention, treatment, education and research in Cancer, which is recognised as one of the leading cancer centres in this part of the world has recently started using e-medical records. As for the insurance claims analysis, though the concept of health insurance has been in India since 1950s, it has picked up only since the past decade. As a result, at this point, we can say that the use of electronic medical records and insurance claims are rarely, if at all, used for economic modelling.
[HealthEconomics.Com] What do you predict for the future of HEOR/Pricing in India in 5 years and 10 years?
[Dr. Dang] The field of HEOR is still in its infancy in India. The most important reason for this is that the health insurance was not considered to be important. However, India’s landscape of health insurance, which was dominated by CGHS and ESIC, has undergone tremendous changes since 2007 with the launch of several new health insurance schemes in the country, largely initiated by central and state governments. The percentage of population covered by a health insurance scheme has accelerated from about 75 million people covered (roughly about 16 million family beneficiaries) in 2007, to an estimated 302 million people in2010, about one-fourth of the population.
With the rising cost of health care in India, and with increase in awareness among the general public, the health insurance sector is expected to grow significantly in the next 5 to 10 years. As a direct result, HEOR is going to play a very vital role in India.
[HealthEconomics.Com] How does your company, MarksMan Healthcare Solutions, approach this challenge? Who are some of your clients and what are some of your successful projects?
[Dr. Dang] MarksMan Healthcare Solutions, established in April 2014, is a budding HEOR consultancy operating in India. Our greatest strength is that we are one amongst the very few HEOR consultancies of Indian origin and operating in India. By virtue of this unique positioning, we aim to offer localised support and strategic working partnership to the established HEOR consultancies based in US/ UK/ Canada, and to grow to be the pioneers in the field of HEOR in India over the next 5-7 years. We have experienced HEOR consultants, health economists and medical writing professionals in our team and are currently in the expansion mode. We offer services including comparative effectiveness research, health economic evaluation, HTA (Health technology assessment) submission and global value dossiers. We also intend to be an active element of ISPOR Indian chapter and HealthNetIndia, and work in close collaboration with other related agencies as well. We also aim to provide high-quality training and to do talent development in the fields of HEOR and pharmacoeconomics, which are still in their infancy stages in India. Our vision is to play a vital role in establishing the complete spectrum of HEOR studies in India, and in that process, contribute to improve the healthcare system in India.
For further information on the India HEOR and market access arena, as well as strategic tools to achieve optimal product value messaging, please contact Dr. Amit Dang, M.D., Founder and CEO, MarksMan Healthcare Solutions, http://marksmanhealthcare.com/, +91-7738389300.
If you or your organization would like to be interviewed for the tHEORetically Speaking blog, please contact HealthEconomics.Com at email@example.com or contact Dr. Patti Peeples directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.