Svarbūs socialinės ir farmacijos politikos uždaviniai yra aprūpinimas vaistais ir vaistų išlaidų kompensavimo sistemos vystymas. Šioje srityje susiduriama su problemomis, būdingomis visuomenėms, stokojančioms resursų, ekonominio ir politinio stabilumo. Visuomeninio sveikatos priežiūros finansavimo apimties problemos aktualios ir ekonomiškai pajėgiausių valstybių viešajai politikai. Senstant populiacijai, kyla sveikatos paslaugų poreikis, siekiama naujų efektyvesnių preparatų įdiegimo. Tai skatina vaistų išlaidų augimą šalyse. Valstybių vyriausybės bando reguliuoti farmacijos rinką. Jos turi subalansuoti besiskiriančius tikslus. Pirma, vyriausybės turi užtikrinti sveikatos politikos tikslus: saugoti visuomenės sveikatą; užtikrinti pacientų priėjimą prie saugių ir efektyvių vaistų; gerinti priežiūros kokybę; ir užtikrinti, kad išlaidos farmacijai netaps pernelyg didelės, kad pakenktų šiems vyriausybiniams tikslams. Taigi teisingumas ir efektyvumas (t.y. ribotų resursų geriausias panaudojimas norint padidinti visuomenės sveikatą) ir pacientų reikmių patenkinimas, yra svarbiausi tikslai. Vienas iš vyriausybės vaidmenų farmacijos politikoje yra pasirūpinti finansavimu ir sistema, kuri sudarytų sąlygas priežiūros kokybei. Nacionalinė vaistų politika – tai valstybės institucijų priemonės ir veiksmai siekiant užtikrinti galimybę įsigyti Lietuvoje kainos ir teritoriniu požiūriu prieinamų, tinkamos kokybės, veiksmingų bei saugių vaistų ir gauti tinkamos kokybės farmacines... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Important tasks of social and pharmacy politics are the supply of pharmaceuticals and developing system of reimbursement of costs on pharmaceuticals. There are problems with societies, which lack for resources, economical and political stability. Problems with financing health care are also important to economically strong countries. Because of population ageing, requirements of health care services grow and the object is implementation of new, more effective preparations. This also promotes growing of costs on pharmaceuticals. Governments try to regulate few markets as much as they do the pharmaceutical market. They have to balance contrasting objectives. First, governments must secure health policy objectives: protecting public health, guaranteeing patient access to safe and effective medicines, improving the quality of care and ensuring that pharmaceutical expenditure does not become excessive so as to undermine these and other government objectives. Equity and efficiency (i.e. making best use of limited resources to increase population health) and meeting patient need are, therefore, perhaps the prime objectives. One of the roles of government in pharmaceutical policy is to provide the funding and framework that allows that quality of care. National policy of pharmaceuticals involves means and acts of state institutions pursuing to ensure possibility to procure drugs, which are cost and territorially available, effective and secure, and also involves possibility to get... [to full text]

Research Doctorate - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / In January 2005 Australia implemented the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). The AUSFTA was a historic document because it laid out a closer trading association between Australia and its close ally, the United States (US). The Agreement was generally welcomed in both countries but it contained provisions that were controversial, perhaps none more so than those covering pharmaceuticals. In Australia there was deep concern over the effects of these provisions on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). A Senate Committee investigating the likely impact of the AUSFTA was apprehensive that the provisions would result in the PBS paying higher prices for some medicines. The many outcomes from the research reported in this thesis are preliminary but amongst them, three stood out. First, the AUSFTA instituted a number of small but significant changes to Australian pharmaceutical policies and processes. Some changes, around transparency and listing times, were positive while others, such as sponsor hearings before the PBAC, will probably have limited negative impact. Second, there is now a need to consider the AUSFTA commitments when Australian health policy is reassessed in the future, which will now make Australia’s regulatory processes more complex. Third, it is argued that the AUSFTA may have had input into major reforms of the Australian PBS. These reforms delivered on an outcome that had been sought by the US: a weakening of reference pricing as used by the Australian PBS. The benefit from the change to reference pricing for Australia is unclear, but the PBS is now more vulnerable to higher prices for new medicines in the future.