BackgroundMany reform efforts in health systems fall short because the use of research evidence to inform policy remains scarce. In Lebanon, one in four adults suffers from a mental illness, yet access to mental healthcare services in primary healthcare (PHC) settings is limited. Using an “integrated” knowledge framework to link research to action, this study examines the process of influencing the mental health agenda in Lebanon through the application of Knowledge Translation (KT) tools and the use of a KT Platform (KTP) as an intermediary between researchers and policymakers.MethodsThis study employed the following KT tools: 1) development of a policy brief to address the lack of access to mental health services in PHC centres, 2) semi-structured interviews with 10 policymakers and key informants, 3) convening of a national policy dialogue, 4) evaluation of the policy brief and dialogue, and 5) a post-dialogue survey.ResultsFindings from the key informant interviews and a comprehensive synthesis of evidence were used to develop a policy brief which defined the problem and presented three elements of a policy approach to address it. This policy brief was circulated to 24 participants prior to the dialogue to inform the discussion. The policy dialogue validated the evidence synthesized in the brief, whereby integrating mental health into PHC services was the element most supported by evidence as well as participants. The post-dialogue survey showed that, in the following 6 months, several implementation steps were taken by stakeholders, including establishing national taskforce, training PHC staff, and updating the national essential drug list to include psychiatric medications. Relationships among policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders were strengthened as they conducted their own workshops and meetings after the dialogue to further discuss implementation, and their awareness about and demand for KT tools increased.ConclusionsThis case study showed that the use of KT tools in Lebanon to help generate evidence-informed programs is promising. This experience provided insights into the most helpful features of the tools. The role of the KTP in engaging stakeholders, particularly policymakers, prior to the dialogue and linking them with researchers was vital in securing their support for the KT process and uptake of the research evidence.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0018-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Hospitals are eligible for nonprofit status, which exempts them from income, property, and sales taxes, in exchange for providing charity care and other community services. [1][2][3][4][5] Importantly, charity care differs fundamentally from uncompensated care or bad debt because there is no expectation that patients will pay for the services. 3,4,6 Based on each hospital's financial assistance policy, charity care is offered to eligible uninsured patients as full or partial discount of medical bills and to eligible insured patients as deductible and coinsurance written off. 6 The existing literature, however, has not made the important distinction between charity care for uninsured patients and insured patients or examined charity care provision across hospitals' financial status. This study aims to fill these knowledge gaps.

The United States relies primarily on market forces to determine prices for drugs, whereas most other industrialized countries use a variety of approaches to determine drug prices. Branded drug companies have patents and market exclusivity periods in most industrialized countries. During this period, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to set their list price as high as they prefer in the United States owing to the absence of government price control mechanisms that exist in other countries. Insured patients often pay a percentage of the list price, and cost sharing creates some pressure to lower the list price. Pharmacy benefit managers negotiate with drug companies for lower prices by offering the drug company favorable formulary placement and fewer utilization controls. However, these approaches appear to be less effective, compared with other countries’ approaches to containing branded drug prices, because prices are substantially higher in the United States. Other industrialized countries employ various forms of rate setting and price regulation, such as external reference pricing, therapeutic valuation, and health technology assessment to determine the appropriate price.