Access to expensive cancer drugs in Dutch daily practice: Should we be concerned?
The Netherlands Journal of Medicine , Volume 72 - Issue 4 p. 235- 241
Background: To investigate whether equal access to bortezomib has been achieved under the Dutch policy regulations that guarantee equal access to expensive inpatient drugs. Methods: We investigated accessibility to bortezomib treatment at national and regional levels by (i) conducting interviews with stakeholders in the Dutch healthcare system to explore prescription barriers and (ii) tabulating sales data from 2004-2009 and trial participation rates. Results: Interviews revealed awareness of the high treatment costs, although prescription barriers were not encountered. National use of bortezomib increased slowly (treating 2% of patients in 2004 to 17% in 2009), indicating a long adjustment period. Furthermore, use remains below the rate estimated by the professional association of haematologists (27%). Regional differences were found for both daily practice use (e.g. ranging from 13-27% in 2009) and clinical trial participation (e.g. ranging from 1-12% in 2006). Conclusion: Our results were somewhat conflicting: interviews did not reveal any prescription barriers, but quantitative methods showed regional differences, signs of underutilisation, and access inequality. Investigating use and accessibility, based on data triangulation, provides valuable feedback which can enhance evidence-based decision making for both physicians and policymakers. This could improve appropriate and efficient use and ensure equal access to expensive drugs.
|Accessibility, Bortezomib, Cancer drugs, Daily practice utilisation, Policy regulations, Regional differences|
|The Netherlands Journal of Medicine|
|Organisation||Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM)|
Blommestein, H.M, Franken, M.G, Verelst, S.G.R, van Agthoven, M, Huijgens, P.C, & Uyl-de Groot, C.A. (2014). Access to expensive cancer drugs in Dutch daily practice: Should we be concerned?. The Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 72(4), 235–241. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/81905