ASSET (Age/Sex Standardised Estimates of Treatment): A Research Model to Improve the Governance of Prescribing Funds in Italy

School of Projects, Processes and Systems, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, United Kindgom.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 02/2007; 2(7):e592. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000592
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to make the first step in the modelling of pharmaceutical demand in Italy, by deriving a weighted capitation model to account for demographic differences among general practices. The experimental model was called ASSET (Age/Sex Standardised Estimates of Treatment). METHODS AND MAJOR FINDINGS: Individual prescription costs and demographic data referred to 3,175,691 Italian subjects and were collected directly from three Regional Health Authorities over the 12-month period between October 2004 and September 2005. The mean annual prescription cost per individual was similar for males (196.13 euro) and females (195.12 euro). After 65 years of age, the mean prescribing costs for males were significantly higher than females. On average, costs for a 75-year-old subject would be 12 times the costs for a 25-34 year-old subject if male, 8 times if female. Subjects over 65 years of age (22% of total population) accounted for 56% of total prescribing costs. The weightings explained approximately 90% of the evolution of total prescribing costs, in spite of the pricing and reimbursement turbulences affecting Italy in the 2000-2005 period. The ASSET weightings were able to explain only about 25% of the variation in prescribing costs among individuals. CONCLUSIONS: If mainly idiosyncratic prescribing by general practitioners causes the unexplained variations, the introduction of capitation-based budgets would gradually move practices with high prescribing costs towards the national average. It is also possible, though, that the unexplained individual variation in prescribing costs is the result of differences in the clinical characteristics or socio-economic conditions of practice populations. If this is the case, capitation-based budgets may lead to unfair distribution of resources. The ASSET age/sex weightings should be used as a guide, not as the ultimate determinant, for an equitable allocation of prescribing resources to regional authorities and general practices.


Available from: Giampiero Favato, Apr 16, 2015
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A longitudinal, retrospective, cohort study was designed to assess the mean treatment cost of invasive cervical cancer, cross-linking clinical and administrative databases. The study was performed from the Italian NHS perspective. Costs were estimated using DRG charges. All patients with histological diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer admitted to Gynecologic Oncology centres of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart between 2000 and 2007 were enrolled. Overall, 351 patients (212 with LACC and 139 with ECC) were eligible for analysis. The mean direct medical cost by patient was € 22,200 ± 21,600 with a significantly higher burden for LACC compared with ECC patients (€ 28,696 ± 24,874 versus € 12,329 ± 8,726). Radical surgery accounted for € 6,851 ± 1,406, and € 7,709 ± 3,710 in ECC and LACC group, respectively; the resulting difference achieved a statistical significance. The extent of disease, disease progression/recurrence, and length of hospitalization confirmed their independent role as cost predictive factors. The combined use of administrative and clinical databases allowed a feasible assessment of the mean cost induced by the invasive cervical cancer. Management of LACC patients was associated with higher costs due to the utilization of several therapeutic strategies and more frequent appearance of disease progression/recurrence.
    Gynecologic Oncology 11/2010; 119(2):243-9. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.06.025 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of multiple medications is becoming more common, with a correspondingly increased risk of untoward effects and drug-related morbidity and mortality. We aimed at estimating the prevalence of prescription of relevant potentially interacting drugs and at evaluating possible predictors of potentially interacting drug exposure. We retrospectively analyzed data on prescriptions dispensed from January 2004 to August 2005 to individuals of two Italian regions with a population of almost 2.1 million individuals. We identified 27 pairs of potentially interacting drugs by examining clinical relevance, documentation, and volume of use in Italy. Subjects who received at least one prescription of both drugs were selected. Co-prescribing denotes "two prescriptions in the same day", and concomitant medication "the prescription of two drugs with overlapping coverage". A logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictors of potential Drug-Drug Interaction (pDDIs). 957,553 subjects (45.3% of study population) were exposed to at least one of the drugs/classes of the 27 pairs. Overall, pDDIs occurred 2,465,819 times. The highest rates of concomitant prescription and of co-prescription were for ACE inhibitors+NSAIDs (6,253 and 4,621/100,000 plan participants). Considering concomitance, the male/female ratio was <1 in 17/27 pairs (from 0.31 for NSAIDs-ASA+SSRI to 0.74 for omeprazole+clopidogrel). The mean age was lowest for methotrexate pairs (+omeprazole, 59.9 years; +NSAIDs-ASA, 59.1 years) and highest for digoxin+verapamil (75.4 years). In 13/27 pairs, the mean ages were ≥70 years. On average, subjects involved in pDDIs received ≥10 drugs. The odds of exposure were more frequently higher for age ≥65 years, males, and those taking a large number of drugs. A substantial number of clinically important pDDIs were observed, particularly among warfarin users. Awareness of the most prevalent pDDIs could help practitioners in preventing concomitant use, resulting in a better quality of drug prescription and potentially avoiding unwanted side effects.
    PLoS ONE 11/2013; 8(10):e78827. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0078827 · 3.53 Impact Factor