Download PDF
Endoskopie heute 2014; 27(1): 45-53
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1366078
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Challenges for the German Health Care System – Pharmaceuticals

Herausforderungen an das deutsche Gesundheitssystem – Arzneimittel
C. F. Dietrich
1   Medizinische Klinik 2, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim
,
M. Mäurer
2   Neurologie, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim
,
P. Riemer-Hommel
3   Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes, Institut für Gesundheitsforschung und -technologie (igft)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 March 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

We recently addressed the challenges of the German Health Care System (GHCS) in an era of an aging population and economic problems discussing the funding process, hospital management and ambulatory care, with a focus on cost control mechanisms and quality improvement measures. Pharmaceutical issues have not been mentioned in detail. It is of interest that increases in Social Health Insurance (SHI) expenditures on pharmaceuticals in Germany were above the European average in the last decades. There are three main aspects to consider when it comes to discussing the topic of pharmaceuticals in health care services, the efficacy of the drugs, safety issues and cost containment. The paper summarizes pharmaceutical issues as challenges for the German Health Care System.

Zusammenfassung

In einer kürzlich publizierten Arbeit diskutierten wir Grundzüge des Deutschen Gesundheitssystems. Erläutert wurden die Finanzierung des Gesundheitswesens sowie Kosten- und Qualitätsaspekte ambulanter und stationärer Patientenversorgung. Die Besonderheiten pharmazeutischer Regulierungsmaßnahmen wurden dagegen ausgespart. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden die Möglichkeiten einer evidenzbasierten Einschätzung und ergebnisorientierten Anwendung von Medikamenten in einer nutzenorientierten Gesundheitspolitik vorgestellt.

Key words

aging population - pharmacoecnomics - hospital - ambulatory Care - health - information technology

Schlüsselworter

Alterspyramide - Pharmaökonomie - Krankenhaus - Ambulanter Sektor - Gesundheit - Informationstechnologie
 

  • References

  • 1 Dietrich CF, Riemer-Hommel P. Challenges for the German Health Care System. Z Gastroenterol 2012; 50 (06) 557-572
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dietrich CF. In Process Citation. Z Gastroenterol 2012; 50 (06) 555-556
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Busse R, Riesberg A. Health care systems in transition: Germany. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Busse R, Schreyogg J, Henke KD. Regulation of pharmaceutical markets in Germany: improving efficiency and controlling expenditures?. Int J Health Plann Manage 2005; 20 (04) 329-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dietrich ES, Nakashima T, Ahrens S. Pharmacoeconomic studies – usability for reimbursement decisions. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2010; 135 (08) 333-338
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB). 2012 http://www.sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de/ (retrieved 16.02.2012)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Häussler B. Arzneimittel-Atlas 2010. Urban & Vogel: 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. Aktueller Stand ausgewählter Indikatoren. 2011 www.destatis.de (retrieved 18.09.2011),
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nink K, Schröder H. Der Arzneimittelmarkt in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Arzneiverordnungsreport 2003. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Schwabe U, Paffrath D. Arzneiverordnungs-Report 2010. Springer; 2010
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bundesministrium für Gesundheit. The Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Arzneimittelmarktes – AMNOG). 2011 http://www.bmg.bund.de/ministerium/english-version/amnog.html (retrieved 12.02.2012),
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Haessler B, Reschke P, Kulik M et al. Arzneimittel: Analogpräparate sind nicht der Grund für Mehrausgaben. Deutsches Aerzteblatt 2006; 103 (38) A-2456
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. 2012 www.pei.de (retrieved 12.02.2012)
    PubMed
  • 14 Dejas-Eckertz P, Schaffner G. Scientific advice by the nationally competent authority and by the EMEA on the conduct of clinical trials. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2005; 48 (04) 423-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Federal Institute for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte [BfArM]). 2012 www.bfarm.de (retrieved 12.02.2012),
    PubMed
  • 16 Wieseler B, Kerekes MF, Vervoelgyi V et al. Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. BMJ 2012; 344: d8141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2012 www.ema.europa.eu (retrieved 12.02.2012)
    PubMed
  • 18 Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2008; 133 (Suppl. 07) S225-S246
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Munnich FE, Sullivan K. The impact of recent legislative change in Germany. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6 (Suppl. 01) 22-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Setia M, Islam AM, Thompson JP et al. Stakeholders' perspective on issues and challenges associated with care and treatment of aging-related cognitive impairment disorders in Singapore. Int Psychogeriatr 2011; 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, Anderson GF. U. S. health care spending in an international context. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23 (03) 10-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wendt C, Minhas R. The power of ideas – can Obama's healthcare reforms change the U. S. health system?. Int J Clin Pract 2010; 64 (04) 423-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Osterkamp R. Public health insurance. Pareto-efficient allocative improvements through differentiated copayment rates. Eur J Health Econ 2003; 4 (02) 79-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schreyogg J, Grabka MM. Copayments for ambulatory care in Germany: a natural experiment using a difference-in-difference approach. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 11 (03) 331-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hoffmann F, Windt R, Glaeske G. Implementation of “aut idem" before and after introduction of rebate contracts. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2010; 135 (15) 739-744
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kostev K, Fuchs S, Bauer C et al. The negative impact of rebate contracts on the health care of patients with depression in Germany. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 49 (06) 397-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Scope of the contract for drug therapy. Rebate contracts also for original drugs. MMW Fortschr Med 2009; 151 (30) 80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Godman B, Schwabe U, Selke G et al. Update of recent reforms in Germany to enhance the quality and efficiency of prescribing of proton pump inhibitors and lipid-lowering drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (05) 435-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Schwermann T, Greiner W, Schulenburg JM. Using disease management and market reforms to address the adverse economic effects of drug budgets and price and reimbursement regulations in Germany. Value Health 2003; 6 (Suppl. 01) S20-S30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 GKV-Arzneimittel-Schnellinformation (GAmSI). 2012 http://www.gkv-gamsi.de/Home gkvnet (retrieved 22 02 2012)
    PubMed
  • 31 Stargardt T, Schreyogg J, Busse R. Pricing behaviour of pharmacies after market deregulation for OTC drugs: the case of Germany. Health Policy 2007; 84 (01) 30-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Siebig J. The role of benchmarking seen from the perspective of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011; 105 (05) 408-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2012 www.nice.org.uk
    PubMed
  • 34 Arndt M. Legal boundaries of negative and positive lists. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 1997; 91 (07) 630-632
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Fritze J, Schmauss M, Holsboer F. The significance of the list of prescribable drugs (so-called positive list) for psychopharmacotherapy. Nervenarzt 2003; 74 (02) 195-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Busse R, Hoffmann C. Priority setting in healthcare. What can Germany learn from other countries?. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2010; 53 (09) 882-889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Vascular specialists in a campaign against positive list. Threat of deficient care for 4.5 million vascular patients. Krankenpfl J 2003; 41 (04) 120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Busse R. Health Policy's future course. Health Policy 2011; 100 (01) 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Ujeyl M, Schlegel C, Walter S et al. New drugs: evidence relating to their therapeutic value after introduction to the market. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2012; 109 (07) 117-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Wetterling T. Legal decisions of german supreme courts about prescription of drugs for not registered indications (“off-label-use”). Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2004; 72 (05) 255-259
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Busse R, Riesberg A. Gesundheitssysteme im Wandel: Deutschland. Copenhagen WHO Regionalbüro für Europa im Auftrag des Europäischen Observatoriums für Gesundheitssysteme und Gesundheitspolitik. 2005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in Med 2011;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – update 2008. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29 (01) 28-44
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Piscaglia F, Bolondi L. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006; 32 (09) 1369-1375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Piscaglia F, Cucchetti A, Bolondi L. "Survival benefit": the final destination, with still a long way to go. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42 (09) 608-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Schreiber-Dietrich D, Dietrich CF. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and off-label use (in children). Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33 (03) 295-296
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Henschel AD, Rothenberger LG, Boos J. Randomized clinical trials in children--ethical and methodological issues. Curr Pharm Des 2010; 16 (22) 2407-2415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Conroy S, Choonara I, Impicciatore P et al. Survey of unlicensed and off label drug use in paediatric wards in European countries. European Network for Drug Investigation in Children. BMJ 2000; 320 (7227) 79-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Harder Y. The physician caught between two chairs. Comments on the difficulty in dealing with off-label use. Urologe A 2007; 46 (10) 1429-1434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hart D, Muhlbauer B. Off-label use of drugs in paediatrics causes uncertainty. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2008; 102 (01) 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Henze G. Dose finding in pediatric patients. Ernst Schering Res Found Workshop 2007; (59) 111-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Hsien L, Breddemann A, Frobel AK et al. Off-label drug use among hospitalised children: identifying areas with the highest need for research. Pharm World Sci 2008; 30 (05) 497-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). Federal Joint Committee. 2012 www.g-ba.de (retrieved 16.02.2012),
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Goetze-Pelka RE. NHS reforms. New ways to harm doctors. BMJ 2010; 341: c6309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Hoppe JD. Limitations to the physician's discretionary and therapeutic freedom and to the provision of health care for the general population by a shortage of financial and human resources–the rules of Section 2 Para. 1 and 4 of the Medical Professional Code of conduct and how much they are really worth. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2007; 101 (08) 521-525
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Blum R. Economics and ethics in public health?. Gesundheitswesen 1999; 61 (01) 1-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Gericke CA, Riesberg A, Busse R. Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. J Med Ethics 2005; 31 (03) 164-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Goodman JC. Solving the problem of the uninsured. Thorac Surg Clin 2005; 15 (04) 503-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 von Weizsacker F, Maio G. Ethical insolvency?. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2010; 135 (16) 819-821
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar