Patient safety, and more broadly the quality of care, is typically discussed with reference to the reduction of preventable adverse events within hospitals and adherence to practice guidelines on care processes. We call it the ‘care-centered approach’ and recognize that the United States is a leader in the field. Another face of patient safety and care quality may be defined as the ‘system-centered approach’. It focuses on access to a timely and effective continuum of health-care services – clinical prevention, primary care and appropriate referral to and receipt of specialty care. Although France's efforts to pursue a care-centered approach to patient safety are limited, its system-centered approach yields some benefits. Based on the evidence we have reviewed for access to primary care (hospital discharges for avoidable hospital conditions), mortality amenable to medical intervention and consumer satisfaction, in the United States and France, there appear to be good grounds for bolstering the system-centered approach in the United States.

Patients’ increasing use of alternative sources of information besides their physician and more active involvement in medical decision making may be changing relationships between physicians and their patients. We term patients who provide medical information to their physicians from sources other than their physician as information-oriented patients and investigate the relationship between having such patients and physician career satisfaction. We find that having more information-oriented patients is significantly associated with lower physician career satisfaction. Though healthcare information from alternative sources other than their physicians is thought to promote better-informed patient choices, the adverse relationship with physician career satisfaction found in this study may have important implications for patient access and quality of care.

Many countries are incorporating direct measures of non-market outputs in the national accounts. For any particular output to be included there has to be data about it for two adjacent periods. This is problematic because the classification of non-market outputs is often subject to wholesale revision. We outline the challenges associated with classification changes and propose a solution. To illustrate we construct output and input indices and estimate productivity growth of the English National Health Service (NHS) for the period 2003–2004 to 2007–2008. Our index of output growth incorporates all care provided to NHS patients and captures improvements in survival rates, waiting times and disease management. We find that more patients are being treated and the quality of the care they receive has been improving. We implement our approach to dealing with changes as to how health services are defined and show what effect this has on estimates of output growth. Our index of input growth captures all labour, intermediate and capital inputs into health service production and we improve on how capital has been measured in the past. Inputs have increased over time but there has also been a slowdown since 2005–2006, primarily the result of a levelling off in staff recruitment and less reliance on the use of agency staff. Productivity is assessed by comparing output growth with growth in inputs, the net effect being constant productivity growth between 2003–2004 and 2007–2008.

This paper investigates the determinants of the prices of branded prescription medicines across different regulatory settings and health care systems, taking into account their launch date, patent status, market dynamics and the regulatory context in which they diffuse. By using volume-weighted price indices, this paper analyzes price levels for a basket of prescription medicines and their differences in 15 OECD countries, including the United States and key European countries, the impact of distribution margins and generic entry on public prices and to what extent innovation, by means of introducing newer classes of medicines, contributes to price formation across countries. In doing so, the paper seeks to understand the factors that contribute to the existing differences in prices across countries, whether at an ex-factory or a retail level. The evidence shows that retail prices for branded prescription medicines in the United States are higher than those in key European and other OECD countries, but not as high as widely thought. Large differences in prices are mainly observed at an ex-factory level, but these are not the prices that consumers and payers pay. Cross-country differences in retail prices are actually not as high as expected and, when controlling for exchange rates, these differences can be even smaller. Product age has a significant effect on prices in all settings after having controlled for other factors. Price convergence is observed across countries for newer prescription medicines compared with older medicines. There is no evidence that originator brand prices fall after generic entry in the United States, a phenomenon known as the ‘generics paradox’. Finally, distribution and taxes are important determinants of retail prices in several of the study countries. To the extent that remuneration of the distribution chain and taxation are directly and proportionately linked to product prices this is likely to persist over time.

Historically, brand-name pharmaceuticals have enjoyed long periods of market exclusivity in Japan, given the limited use of generics after patent expiration. To improve the efficiency of the health-care system, however, the government has recently implemented various policies aimed at increasing generic substitution. Although this has created expectations that the Japanese generic drug market may finally take off, to date, generic usage has increased only modestly. After reviewing the incentives of key market participants to choose generics, we argue that previous government policies did not provide proper incentives for pharmacies to boost generic substitution. We offer some recommendations that may help to increase generic usage.

In this paper, we characterise the risk-sharing contracts that health authorities can design when they face a regulatory decision on drug pricing and reimbursement in a context of uncertainty. We focus on two types of contracts. On the one hand, the health authority can reimburse the firm for each treated patient regardless of health outcomes (non risk-sharing). Alternatively, the health authority can pay for the drug only when the patient is cured (risk-sharing contract). The optimal contract depends on the trade-off between the monitoring costs, the marginal production cost and the utility derived from treatment. A non-risk-sharing agreement will be preferred by the health authority, if patients who should not be treated impose a relatively low cost to the health system. When this cost is high, the health authority would prefer a risk-sharing agreement for relatively low monitoring costs.

Policy debate about funding criteria for drugs used to treat rare, orphan diseases is gaining prominence. This study presents evidence from a discrete choice experiment using a convenience sample of university students to investigate individual preferences regarding public funding for drugs used to treat rare diseases and common diseases. This pilot study finds that: other things equal, the respondents do not prefer to have the government spend more for drugs used to treat rare diseases; that respondents are not willing to pay more per life year gained for a rare disease than a common disease; and that respondents weigh relevant attributes of the coverage decisions (e.g. costs, disease severity and treatment effectiveness) similarly for both rare and common diseases. The results confirm the importance of severity and treatment effectiveness in preferences for public funding. Although this is the first study of its kind, the results send a cautionary message regarding the special treatment of orphan drugs in coverage decision-making.