Assuming develop business based on research data, any client company is vitally interested in the fact that they most accurately reflect the real situation. Are researchers pharma guarantee them the quality of their work ? To a large extent the future accuracy of the result is determined by the right choice of the study methodology, an accurate representation of the characteristics of the target group and sample sizes. In quantitative studies system usually needs to provide a sampling error of not more than 3% of 95 % confidence interval. A separate question - qualitative characteristics of the sample. For example, you can simply "stupid " interview any doctors came to hand, and you can filter through to reach your target group. Art here is composed of the understanding of these filters ( analysts work at the design stage of research) and their implementation ( job recruiters and field in general). On our professional language is FieldWork - " field " structure that implements the most important stages of technology research - design profiles, their acrobatics, duplication, instructing interviewers and provides reachability respondents correctness polls, quantitative and qualitative compliance sampling and collection of questionnaires goner.
In our case it is a single unit online pharmacy that build and nurture more than 10 years. His indispensable attribute - a system of internal and external monitoring of progress of research. Besides external formal commitment exists and its own system of integrated control. For example, in a telephone survey our educational and methodical department in the face of staff required to duplicate at least 20 % of calls operators to confirm their integrity and compliance with the survey methodology. In the process of conducting telephone interviews manager has access to any operator - interviewer to verify the correctness of his actions and to evaluate the perception of the respondents questions. We ourselves should not even question - do it or not. Another thing is that all this requires a corresponding technical support.
Announced regulatory transformation - certainly the most important event in 2014 in the U.S. pharmaceutical market, the effects of which are not just long-term, but, apparently, will have a very serious impact on the development of the market as a whole. Cornerstone of transformation - changes in the preferential provision. Here broken a lot of copies, but before the final decision is extremely efficient and far. Anxious and the fact that the latest world achievements in the field of pharmacoeconomics sidestep practice informed preferential formation of lists of drugs. Instead, the scientific approach is widely used non-transparent system of "checks and balances". Originally operated in full concept of " availability" of drugs, then transformed into " the accessibility and effectiveness." And then, and more words rather than realizable goal.
As a result, we have entangled plot, when different systems of calculating reference prices may actually be cut and modern high performance vehicles ( which is certainly bad) and of questionable quality suspiciously cheap drugs ( which is undoubtedly good). But, since the boundary definition of efficiency is calculated here is more mathematical than medical approaches, some creeps already become traditional seditious thought - everything will be bad and wins the one who had to hurry up and full-bodied. And poor exempt, in principle, will have what he had, perhaps he could buy more charcoal and dipyrone.
Yes, we must live in the real world - this discussion takes place in a rich country with a mass of unresolved political, economic and social problems, but who said that in this case we do not have to look for a proper and optimal solution? Quite right by one of the last Adam Smith Conference was expressed surprisingly clear and succinct in fact thought - " Efficiency not enough at all " ( represented by its deservedly respected and progressive domestic producers ). Reality it is. But is there any chance get things off the ground?
Come on rigorous scientific way. Try to consider how, in fact, different real practice physicians in the treatment of the same disease patients with and without preferential status. Fortunately, such a tool we have for quite some time. We carry out regular monitoring of the prescribing physician 15 outpatient specialties. Data were obtained in January - February 2014 when monitoring drug prescriptions cardiologists 4034 patients, of which 55% ( 2160 ) had the status of beneficiaries. For comparison, we chose those diseases which the patient suffers about the same age, and tried to trace what differences there are and what the doctors in the approaches to the treatment of these two groups of patients.
Thus, we are faced with a rather serious problem when the presence or absence of the drug in the preferential list significantly affects the choice of treatment regimens and the use of highly effective medicines doctors. Under these conditions, the problem of providing high quality medical services subject to preferences segments of the population are little doable. Although the logic of it is they who need high quality medical services. Where is the way out of this situation?
Need to establish a mechanism to obtain a constant information not just about the existing therapeutic approaches, but also their differentiation on performance criteria and cost, that really should be the basis of preferential compiling lists.
Must consistently deviate from the principle of minimum security schemes favorable therapeutic drugs to achieve the efficiency, which is willing to pay for, or pay extra patient himself, which involves additional fees or surcharges independent from third parties ( insurance companies, employers ). This should involve not only the opportunity to choose from a wider range of products, but also of different brands within the same substance.
Evaluation criterion lists including share should be in the presence of these high-performance innovative products and uniform representation of the different pharmacological categories.