ABSTRACTS PANEL I Challenges in Health Financing

Wija Oortwijn

Using HTA for making legitimate reimbursement decisions in health care

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) must be tailored to the needs and requirements of health care systems in specific countries to be most useful as an aid to decision-making. The aim of the presentation is to obtain insight into methods and processes that can support timely decisions on reimbursement of health technologies, especially in Brazil, Serbia, Slovakia and Taiwan.

The use of HTA in reimbursement decisions is still in its early stages with varying levels of HTA implementation. Overall, the HTA processes adopted are new and as yet not very robust and transparent, leading to less predictability for relevant stakeholders. The funding for HTA is often not substantial and sustainable. In addition, countries often have poor availability of local data. Countries frequently use information (outputs) as well as methods/procedures from HTA in industrialized countries. With the exception of Brazil, it was found limited experience and expertise (i.e. capacity) and headcount to conduct HTA, especially with regard to economic evaluations (including modelling) and assessment of social, legal and ethical issues.

In Serbia HTA is less well developed compared to the other countries, while Brazil is rapidly developing effective HTA with clear links to the health needs of the country. However, the processes in Brazil are not yet fully developed in terms of transparency and inclusiveness. HTA in Slovakia and Taiwan are in an intermediate position. Increased collaboration across countries can support shared evidence generation (assessment) regarding health technology. It may also lead to increased capacity to undertake assessments. This leads to a bigger scope and impact of the work of evidence producers and simplifies evidence production. However, there is no one size that fits all. It would be good to investigate if and how countries follow HTA decisions in other countries and how to make best use of it to ensure fitness for purpose.

Krzysztof Łanda

HTA as advisory tool for investors - MedInvest Scanner databases

Nowadays most of medical device manufacturers around the world are participating in chaise for innovations. Innovations can not only change the medical practice and improve quality of patients care but also become a huge business success for the inventors. There is a big noise on the market and most of the producers describes their products as innovative. Unfortunately only a few of them deserves this definition. By Health Technology Assessment it is possible to substantially improve the process of selecting the most promising medical technologies. It is especially important for potential investors to undertake appropriate research which can inform about the true value of technologies of interest. HTA combined with different methodologies used in investment decision making can be a great tool aiming to decrease investment risk. Consultancy MedInvest Scanner offers an access to database of disruptive non-drug medical technologies which debut on world markets. Those innovations are also ranked according to HTA and EBM criteria informing about their investment attractiveness.

Vanesa Benković

Financing of orphan drugs

There are approximately 7,000 different types of rare diseases and approximately 50% of the affected are children. Alongside with rapid progress of genomic medicine more and more benefits emerge for rare disease patients. Although the EU has prioritized rare diseases and regulatory incentives are supporting faster access, budgetary constraints challenge financing and affordability in most countries.

About 15 years after implementation of EU and US orphan legislations, more than 100 ODs have been approved and represent 3-4% of the pharmaceutical budget. Recent publications predict that orphan drugs expenditure, would plateau between 4% and 5% of total pharmaceutical expenditure until 2020. Many factors impact financing the ODs such as: country own GDP spent on health care, availability of an alternative drug treatment, status of national plan for rare diseases, treatment length, administration route, impact on overall survival and QoL. Pricing and affordability of orphan drugs are unique because R&D costs need to be recouped from small populations and there are usually few alternatives available.The rareness of the condition means the company can't spread the R&D cost over large patient populations.
Many questions rise around the issue of financing and then costing of ODs: What are the criteria that should be used to assess the value of an orphan drug? What does a drug offer to mitigate the condition and meet the unmet need? Does it help lower overall societal health care costs and improve quality of life? Due to different pricing and reimbursement policies prices vary across countries and present a very inventive landscape especially in CEE, mostly refered to as the black box.

Additional challenge represent current limitations of conventional HTA models, without taking into account specificities of OD such as disease severity, equity, burden to patient and families, availability of other therapies and the age of patients. Therefore a multi criteria decision analysis model should be used whenever possible to include mentioned variables and not only budget impact and cost-effectiveness.
Given continuous budgetary constraints, countries should continue implementing national plans allowing access to orphan drugs and go toward more transparency in reimbursement as well as collaboration between stakeholders (patient organizations, payers, centers of excellence).

Norbert Wilk

Central and Eastern Europe - Diversity to tame, Market Access potential to unveil

Key points:
  • Regional diversities in approaches to public funding decision making
  • Comparative measures to enable informed allocation of company strategic efforts
  • Analysis of public funding decision making practice as a tool to identify risks and opportunities and to provide unbeatable arguments to CEE decision makers
Central and Eastern Europe is a region of some twenty countries but 380 million people, including Russia and Turkey. Since the fall of communism CEE countries are clearly engaging on a path towards strong economic growth. Due to various geopolitical and macroeconomic reasons the pace may be even hastened in the coming years.
Differences among the CEE countries are also reflected in their various approaches to granting public funding for drugs. The range is dramatic, from no HTA and no submission approach up to extensive HTA requirements imposed by law and a EUR25,000 official submission fee. With such diversity the question arises if the public funding decisions in these countries are of similarly good quality? Are they appropriately addressing the issues that the decision makers are required to address by law? How can the informational needs of those decision makers be so different?
Apart from the differences, these countries share a feature that may have the largest impact on their decision making approach – a post-communist legacy of dialectical materialism. In its most extreme form it is not the content-related issues that drive the decision but the other implicit criteria. Some call it lack of predictability.
So, what matters… more? How the case performs on the official criteria or how attractive is the unofficial offer?
To answer such questions and learn the real impact of evidence we developed an approach called Decision Making Practice Analysis. In regard to reimbursement decisions it relies on thorough analysis of all available documentation of the decision making processes.
If the requirement for equal treatment of every human and legal entity is universal, which seems to be the case in the civilized world, then it results in the need for coherency in public funding decision making for drugs in a given country. This means that based on previous decisions in similar cases we may predict what the decision should be in our case. We can also communicate to the decision maker the arguments drawn on the basis of cases supporting the decision positive to us. In this way we shoot two birds with one stone. At a business micro level we greatly improve our chances for such positive resolution in a given case. But at a country level we also increase coherency of the public funding decision making practice because the decision maker would be more prone to make officially justifiable decisions. The Decision Making Practice Analysis is particularly important and applicable to CEE countries as the before mentioned legacy can still be seen in public funding decision making processes even in the countries with the most formally developed HTA.

PANEL II Transferring Evidence

Angela Yu

Managed Entry Agreements in China: Current Status, and Lessons for Central and Eastern Europe

Against the background of growing country health care spending, the increasing availability of potentially life­saving high­cost drugs represents several risks to payers: the risk of funding a costly technology without sufficient evidence to assess effectiveness, the risk of not providing access to technologies which can extend life and/or significantly improve quality of life, and the risk of discouraging future investment in the local life-sciences sector.

Managed Entry Agreements (MEA), or formal arrangements between payers and manufacturers with the aim of sharing the financial risk due to uncertainty surrounding the introduction of new technologies have gained increasing interest in the health policy domain. In recent years, sub­national government payers in China have begun to experiment with formal MEA’s, the earliest of which came to fruition in the port city of Qingdao, Shandong province in 2011. Following successful implementation in Qingdao, and the announcement by the central government to allocate resources to offer financial protection against critical illnesses, many other regions have begun to explore MEA’s.

This talk focuses on the Chinese experience of MEA’s so far, while shedding light on institutional structures which enabled MEA implementation. Relevant lessons are drawn for CEE countries in maximizing the value of health spend, the role of HTA in resource allocation, and perspectives on collaborating with manufacturers.

Mark Parker

Real World Evidence for Real World Challenges

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in defining clinical evidence for treatments. These trials are designed to minimise the various biases and other problems which accompany an assessment of clinical benefit. However, such trials are limited in time and place, extremely expensive to conduct and the real world is infinitely more complicated than is represented by the trials. Recent advancements in technology have resulted in an explosion of available evidence collected in real world settings, from hospital and general practice, to specific patient registries collecting a wealth of data on a range of treatments and practices. While this evidence is vital to support our knowledge of healthcare delivery, the ability to analyse it is still in its infancy. This lecture is intended to demonstrate both the problems and solutions to the challenges which surround evidence based medicine based on real world data.

Tanja Novakovic

Patient registries as a tool for improvement in the quality of treatment and for appropriate planning and allocation of resources

From the perspective of health economist the main aim of a clinical register is to collect data concerning effectiveness (with respect to clinically significant endpoints) and the most important cost-generating events. Such a register should be properly designed to provide credible and useful information in relation to possible reservations and doubts concerning the effectiveness.

In well organized health care systems, patient registries are part of a society. Law strictly controls data collection, maintenance and use of the data. The main objective of patient registry in such systems is to improve the quality of care and to put a patient in the centre of the system. Registries have exceptional practical value for all stakeholders in the health system: the service provider and the payer (in terms of improving health care, as a decision making tool and the means of making payment and financing therapy, monitoring of epidemiology), academia and clinicians (for clinical outcomes research and translating medical research into practice), patients (who are becoming more aware of how they can contribute to better treatment outcomes) and pharmaceutical companies (as a unique platform for outcomes research, safety and effectiveness studies, pricing analysis and providing earlier access of a therapy). The presentation will show the role of patient registries in informing decision making and propose potential future prospects of use of patient data in Serbia.

Dávid Dankó

Novartis Sponsored Lecture Pragmatic Reimbursement Decision Making Framework – A Key for Resolving Reimbursement Impasse in Serbia

In times of austerity and constrained public budgets, investments in health systems should continue. Evidence suggests significant reductions in healthcare/pharmaceutical budgets risk creating new inefficiencies, undermining access to and quality of care, and damaging health outcomes. However, the need for investing in patient access to innovative medicines must be balanced with the need for budgetary/fiscal consolidation. This clearly requires adoption and implementation of more efficient, consistent, transparent, sustainable and depoliticized reimbursement decision making process.

In view of limited pharmaceutical budgets and the low level of HTA resources and capabilities, pharmaceutical assessment system in Serbia should be balanced and resource conscious, while offering higher process transparency and facilitating patient access to value-added and/or cost-saving new medicines. It should look beyond budget impact and facilitate more rational decision-making.

Proposed Framework can help with consistent and transparent decision making on P&R of medicines, allocate resources efficiently (within a given budget), prioritize scarce healthcare expenditure according to consistent rules, understand the “value” that a medicine brings to the healthcare system, and align health spending decisions with societal preferences and patient needs.

Having in mind the recommendations arising from EU Transparency Directive, according to which NHIF must ensure that principles of accountability, transparency and good governance are applied throughout the reimbursement policy and process, proposed Framework is taking into account available resources and capabilities and is supposed to facilitate access to new “value-added” pharmaceuticals while ensuring the transparency of decision-making process and stability/sustainability of the pharmaceutical budget.

PANEL III Special diseases and Pharmaceuticals

Bojan Trkulja

Access to innovation – Where is Serbia today?

Innovative medicines provide significant value to both patients and society – saving and prolonging lives, halting and/or slowing disease progression, reducing side effects, improving quality of life and preventing unnecessary hospitalizations and other more expensive procedures are some of the mechanisms through which innovation has transformed healthcare in the last 50 years. Unfortunately, Serbia is starting to significantly lag behind the region in terms of access to innovative medicines in the last five years.
In order to capture the real life data, INOVIA association commissioned IMS Health to benchmark Serbia to three official reference countries – Croatia, Slovenia and Italy – plus Bulgaria, as a country with very similar economic and demographic data. Results showed not only that Serbia adopted fewest number of new innovative medicines (that garnered marketing authorization in EU after January 1 2007) compared to the region, but that the difference is bigger than anticipated, with Serbian patients having access to 9 times less new medicines than the average in the peer countries.
More importantly, survey revealed important learnings about the root of the problem, pointing out to the possible short-term solutions that would allow Serbia to catch-up even without significantly increasing healthcare funding.

Brian Godman

Challenges associated with high prices of new cancer medicines; potential ways forward for CEE countries based on HTA principles

Prices of new cancer medicines have increased ten-fold during the past decade, and this will continue with companies typically seeking orphan status for new medicines. Currently often little association between health gain and requested prices, e.g. of the 12 drugs approved by the FDA for cancer in 2012, 9 were priced at more than US$10,000/ month with only 3 prolonging survival, two by less than 2 months. Of 7 targeted therapies for renal cell cancer, all were associated with minimal or no improvement on overall survival times, at a cost of US$70,000 to US$140,000 annually. This coupled with increasing prevalence of patients with cancer is putting real pressure on healthcare systems. These challenges are resulting in a re-thinking of approaches including greater questioning over requested prices and the development of essential medicine list of oncology drugs. These issues will be discussed and debated during the presentation.

Günter Harms

Why are Orphan Drugs different? – Achieving sustainable access for orphan drugs

Since 2000, the European Union has prioritized rare diseases as one of the public health areas which require strong support, with the creation of the EU Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products (or OMPs). This is recognizing that due to their rarity, patients with a rare disease have not benefited from medical innovation to the same extent as patients with more common diseases. In addition, regulatory and economic incentives are required to ensure that patients suffering from rare conditions can in fact benefit from advances in medical innovation. Research and development of OMPs is complex and time-consuming, due to the specificities of rare diseases, such as the small number of patients and the heterogeneity of the conditions – one rare disease can have a wide array of different symptoms and impact with varying severity. The scarcity of “centres of excellence”, initially limited scientific knowledge and the lack of alternative treatment, can all influence the medicine development.

Because of the complexities associated with rare diseases, some EU Member States have amended their HTA systems to support access to OMPs. However, in many cases, conventional HTA systems are not adapted and therefore the assessment fails when applied to OMPs.

There is a recognized need for a concerted effort to establish a proper system of care for rare disease patients. Following the Council Recommendation on European action in the field of rare diseases in June 2009, Member State national plans have reached different stages of advancement. A maintained focus on rare diseases should be a health policy priority, and countries must continue adopting national plans to allow access to rare diseases.

Jovan Mihajlovic

Targeted therapies in oncology – a Serbian pharmacoeconomic perspective

Targeted cancer therapies (TCTs) bring clinically important gains in survival in one of the most challenging therapeutic areas, yet, this is followed by considerable increase in healthcare expenditures. The aim of the presentation will be to identify differences in the recommendations for TCTs in three distinctive European healthcare systems: the Serbian, Scottish and Dutch, and to examine the role of pharmacoeconomic (PE) assessment in such recommendations.

A list of currently approved TCTs cited from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was cross-referenced with the drug reimbursement reports issued by National Health Insurance Fund (RFZO) for Serbia, Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) for Scotland and National Health Institute (ZiNL) for the Netherlands. The key variables were gathered from the reports: drug indication, registration status, reimbursement status and outcome of the PE evaluation.

There were 41 TCTs approved for 70 cancer indications by EMA. Out of total number of TCTs’ indications (TCT/i), 20 were reimbursed in Serbia, and 25 are still without the decision from RFZO. Remaining TCT/is(25) are not registered in Serbia. None of submissions neither PE analyses were publically available.

Reimbursement statuses of TCTs significantly differ in three examined healthcare systems. Level of PE application within TCTs’ evaluation procedures seem to largely affect final reimbursement decisions. More precise pharmacoeconomic guidelines are still to be designed for TCTs’ reimbursement in Serbia. Guidelines must account for specific epidemic and economic conditions of the country and could build on the experiences of Scotland and the Netherlands.

Novartis Sponsored Lecture How public private partnerships can address challenges in patient access

Europe’s partnership for Health was founded back in 2008 by EU and Pharmaceutical Industry and has currently more than 60 ongoing projects under the umbrella of the IMI (innovative medicine initiative) program. By facilitating and leveraging collaboration between healthcare researchers including universities, pharmaceutical companies, patient organisations and medicines regulators, the main objective of the “Innovative Medicine Initiative” is to improve health by speeding up the development of, and patient access to, the next generation of medicines, particularly in areas where there is an unmet medical or social need. The focus of IMI’s Strategic Research Agenda for 2014-2024 is on delivering the right prevention and treatment for the right patient at the right time. Health priorities in the IMI Strategic Research Agenda 2014 are rare/orphan diseases, cancer, vaccines, ageing associated diseases, immune mediated diseases, respiratory diseases, psychiatric diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, cardiovascular diseases, osteoarthritis and antimicrobial resistance.

Jakub Adamski

Improving Polish HTA guidelines to better serve the decision-maker

Health technology assessment aims at enabling better decision-making with regard to spending public funds on healthcare through informing the authorities about important characteristics of interventions and possible consequences of future decisions. However, to achieve that goal it is instrumental that the HTA dossier submitted for assessment as well as the appraisal criteria reflect the needs of said decision-maker.
For that reason, requirements to be met by reimbursement applications vary significantly from country to country – they reflect (or at least should reflect) not only organisational capabilities but more importantly the preferences and values of the decision maker. The requirements may vary from simply budget impact analyses (Croatia), through presenting /cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses (Hungary) to RCT systematic reviews (Poland). Appraisal results also vary as countries may put different value to factors like innovativeness (France) or indications (UK).
In Poland, under the 2011 legislation all pharmaceuticals which have an active substance not yet reimbursed have to provide a comprehensive HTA dossier, including clinical, economic and budget impact analyses. These are assessed by the Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System and appraised by its President who advises the Minister of Health on financing healthcare services from public funds. HTA dossiers have to comply with minimum requirements set out by the Minister of Health in 2012. The current HTA guidelines were published in 2010.
From 2012 more than 300 recommendations on reimbursement of pharmaceuticals were issued by the President of the HTA Agency. However, as Institute Arcana’s research shows the appraisal of HTA dossiers done in recommendations has limited impact on final decisions issued by the Minister of Health due to his “other considerations”. This brings an important question, whether data provided in the HTA dossier is as useful for the decision-taker as expected when the regulations were drafted? Shouldn’t they better reflect the crux of the decision to be taken? And what information is really necessary to take the final decision? Recent presentation of the Institute Arcana on a conference in Cracow sparked a very important discussion on future of minimum requirements and HTA guidelines. As the Ministry of Health is actively partaking in the process, there is a chance for change.

Abbvie Sponsored Lecture Croatian perspective cost effectiveness analysis of HCV “Interferon free“ therapy Neven Lovrinov

New generation of oral HCV treatment demonstrates high effectiveness rate with SVR(sustained viral response) over 95% both in treatment experienced and naive patients with HCV genotype 1 and 4. Treatment duration is 12 weeks in most of the patients and administration route oral which leads to high compliance rates. Since new generation of treatment caries incremental costs of medicines compared to current standard, we conducted cost effectiveness analysis to determine patient groups that can be treated at cost effective ratio (Shepherd 2007; Hartwell 2011).
In treatment naïve patients ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir and dasabuvir combined with or without ribavirin (depending on genotype 1a/1b), compared to dual treatment,can achieve additional QALY with 113.113 kn (≈14.786 Eur) incremental cost(ICER). Cost per QUALY gained in treatment experienced patients with genotype 1 HCV varies between 20,512 kn (≈2.681 Eur) and 30.256 kn (≈3.955 Eur) depending if compared to triple treatment including boceprevir or telaprevir. Treatment experienced patient with HCV genotype 4, who do not have treatment alternative can be treated with ombitasvir, paritaprevir and ritonavir combined with ribavirin at 73.761 kn (≈9.641 Eur) per QALY gained.
Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analysis confirms robustness of results.
At proposed threshold of highly cost effective (<1 x GDP) and cost effective (<3 x GDP), treatment of naive patients with genotype 1 represents cost effective strategy and highly cost effective in treatment experience patients regardless of HCV genotype 1 or 4.


Applying Budget Impact and Cost Effectiveness Analysis (BIA and CEA) is an ever more important practice in healthcare decision making. National regulatory agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia, as well as managed care organizations in the United States, have required for several years that companies submit estimates of both the cost-effectiveness and the likely impact of the new health-care interventions on national, regional, or local health plan budgets.
This important trend has been followed closely by Central and Eastern European Countries, with Serbia for example making both CEA and BIA a compulsory part of their submission process in April of 2014.
Despite the efforts to standardise both BIA and CEA in highly developed nations, local health care, epidemiology, information availability and available local skills reflect a very different environment for submissions within Central and Eastern European Countries. This presents the unique challenge of greater evidence synthesis requirements for similar quality submissions, while at the same time a lack of local skills and ability to pay for the education to acquire them makes even the simplest submission a difficult task.
Attendees to the Workshop day, on the 10th of October 2015, Hotel Metropol, Belgrade, Serbia will have the opportunity to meet highly experienced practitioners of both BIA and CEA, who have worked extensively on constructing such submissions both for the developed markets and regionally. Providing unique insight into the means used to address these problems and learn the important skills required to construct a good submission for the region, as well as the common mistakes which plague such submissions currently.
This will culminate at the end of the day, when participants engage in a competitive war game, putting their acquired knowledge and skill to the test in a simulated patient population in Serbia. This simulation combines the recent advent of Central Tendering in Serbia, with skills and models for the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) to travel into a plausible future where HCV is cured in Serbia.
Session SFE SFUS - 7th Serbian Congress of Pharmacy
Friday 12th October 2018, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Belgrade, Serbia
Is Belgrade the New Berlin?
APRIL 6, 2017
No city makes you feel more like a New Yorker than Belgrade. In Belgrade, people don’t walk, they amble; lunch spans the course of 3 or 4 hours; and drinks are sipped, never knocked back. Despite the slow pace of life, there’s still an unmistakable energy that bursts through the city.
Preliminary Program

The preliminary program for the conference "THE VALUE OF INNOVATION IN DECISION MAKING" is now available. Use the link above or access from the menu in the top right.
VI International SFE SFUS Conference
2nd June 2017, Belgrade, hotel Metropol, Serbia.

The Pharmacoeconomics Section of the Pharmaceutical Association of Serbia (SFE SFUS) is organising its Sixth International Conference with the topic:
Fifth International Conference - Speakers
9th and 10th of October 2015 Belgrade, hotel Metropol
Prof. dr Brian Godman PhD, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Glasgow, UK; Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Wija Oortwijn PhD, Partner at ECORYS NL, The Netherlands

Krzysztof Landa MD, President at MedInvest Scanner Ltd M.I.S., Poland

Mark Parker MSc, Health Economics Unit, University of Liverpool Management School, UK

Angela Yu MSc, London School of Economics, UK

Timothy Johnston, Program Leader for Inclusive Growth and Human Development, Southeast Europe, Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank

Dávid Dankó PhD, Managing Director at Ideas & Solutions, Hungary

Dr. Günter Harms, Market Access and Public Affairs Director, Shire, Germany

Vanesa Benkovic MSc, Senior HTA and health research consultant, Croatia

Bojan Trkulja MD, Managing Director at INOVIA, Serbia

Tanja Novakovic MSc Pharm, President of Pharmacoeconomics Section, Serbia, Representative of Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia

Jovan Mihajlovic, MSc Pharm, Unit of Pharmacoepidemiology & Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Livio Garattini, Mario Negri Institute, Milano, Italija

Jakub Adamski, Arcana Institute, Poland

Alan Haycox, MSc, Health Economics Unit, University of Liverpool Management School, UK

Norbert Wilk, Arcana Institute, Poland

Neven Lovrinov, MSc Pharm, Terminal d.o.o., Croatia

Belgrade, 28th April 2015, hotel Crowne Plaza
The Pharmacoeconomics Section of the Pharmaceutical Association of Serbia
The objectives of the conference are:

• present the characteristics of biopharmaceutical medicines and biosimilars,

• understanding the nature of biopharmaceutical and biosimilar regulations,

• share clinical experience with biological medications and more generally

• exchanging experiences and knowledge with experts from the region and international stage.
Managed Introduction of new medicines
11 – 13 May 2015 - Warsaw, Poland
PIPERSKA workshop co-organised with the Agency for HTA & Tariff System in Poland and WHO Europe
This course is primarily intended for healthcare
professionals involved with enhancing the rational use
of medicines especially new medicines
Fifth Adriatic and Fourth Croatian Congress of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Šibenik, Croatia, from 23rd to 26th April 2015.
Section for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of the Croatian Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Croatian Medical Association
This year focus will be on the following subjects: 'The role and impact of pharmaceutical industry on the general economy in countries in the region' and 'The need to adapt the model for health technology assessment in countries with high risk of sustainability of healthcare financing in order to ensure transparency and competitiveness'.
5th of February 2015 Crowne Plaza Hotel, Belgrade, SERBIA
SFUS Pharmacoeconomics Section
The purpose of the Conference is to:
• Introduce and present the importance and value of patient registries,
• Introduce health outcomes and treatment outcomes reported by patients,
• Exchange experiences across the countries that used data of patients registers in the
pharmacoeconomic analysis
• Introduce the examples of special agreements (Risk sharing, Pay per Performance)
HTA for Healthcare Quality Assurance
December 15th-16th, 2014, Kraków, Poland
CEESTAHC 9th International Symposium Evidence-Based Health Care 2014