Assessing The Efficiency Of The Long-Term Care Hospital Units In Hungary Between 2006 And 2013

Abstract

A527 burse different essential medicine causing inequity to access essential medicines. Federal ministry of health tried to unify essential list in 10 different cantons by Order from 2011 but this has never been fully implemented by all 10 cantonal HIFs. In Republic of Srpska (RS) there is one HIF, and 3rd administrative part Brcko District (BD) has its own HIF. Methods: We compered average reimbursed prices from main HIFs in B&H for most commonly proscribed primary care medicines based on 2014 Annual report on medicines utilization issued by Agency for medicines of B&H. Average prices have been taken into account since different presentation of the same INN (dosage and number of units in pack) are reimbursed. All prices are expressed in EUR and represents prices paid by HIF. Results: Comparing Federal MoH proposed reimbursed prices and prices from RS HIF s it is noted that prices are higher in RS (+20% on average) except in case of bisoprolol. The highest difference is for atorvastatin (+39%). Prices in BD are on average lover for-14% vs Federal prices and-43% vs RSHIF prices. There are high differences among cantonal RB prices comparing to Federal proposal and among main 3 cantons. Atorvastatin is not reimbursed in Tuzla and Zenica Canton, while rosuvastatin is not reimbursed in Tuzla Canton and BD. Also different copayment levels are introduced at cantonal HIF level causing additional inequalities. ConClusions: Different prices cause inequity to access essential medicines for inhabitants living in different administrative regions. It also impact market indifferences. Implementation of unified and centralized pricing system would positively impact on access to medicines and HIFs spending.

Productivity and efficiency in the health care system with special focus on hospital performance

“…Studija iz Mađarske je obuhvatila više od 100 bolnica tokom sedam godina istraživanja (51). Njeni rezultati su ukazali da su prosečni nivoi efikasnosti iznosili preko 90%, dok se učešće efikasnih bolnica kretalo od 6% do 17%.…”

“…Primena DEA analize je pokazala da su gotovo sve neefikasne bolnice pokazale rastući prinos po obimu, tj. da su bile suviše male za postojeći nivo aktivnosti (51). Kundurijev i Salšev su upoređivali efikasnost psihijatrijskih ustanova u Bugarskoj (52).…”