A trade mark is, in its most basic sense, a badge of identity. Its most essential characteristic is its capacity to distinguish one undertaking's goods or services from those of another. This function is reflected in the legal definition of a trade mark in the law of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, which states:
'...a 'trade mark' means any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.'2
There is widespread criticism of organisational costs in the NHS. 'Reduce bureaucracy, release funds for patient care' has become a popular slogan. This so-called 'bureaucracy' may, however, be essential to delivering health care. The complexity of modern health care means that some organisational costs have to be incurred if the right health care is to go to the right people at the right time.
Disease management is a term with multiple and ambiguous meanings. For some, it is purely a form of managing care. For others, it is ‘strategic planning’ by the pharmaceutical industry to market its products in a different way. In between these two ends of the semantic spectrum are a wide variety of interpretations and usage. Forms of health care management exist that embody all the principles of disease management, but which are given a different label. In this report, we explore different notions of disease management and consider their relevance to the NHS.
The objective of this paper is to analyse the existing estimates of NCE costs and look at the subsequent changes in cost components and at the impact of structural change in the R&D process. These discussions cannot substitute for new estimates that are based on more recent company data but, in the absence of such new estimates, they do provide some indication of the direction and magnitude of likely cost changes that have occurred in the 1980s and 1990s.
The topic I have been asked to address, 'Doctors, Economics and Clinical Practice Guidelines: Can they be Brought Together', is both difficult and controversial. It is also timely. With the creation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the National Service Frameworks, and the clinical governance project, the UK has an opportunity to develop systematic national solutions to problems that have challenged every society - how to balance the quality and cost of health care in a way that respects both people's humanity and their pocketbooks.
The English, Scottish and Welsh National Health Service (NHS) White Papers published by the government in December 1997 and January 1998, have changed the tone of NHS policy. Co-operation is to replace competition; there is to be a statutory requirement to provide good quality health care; and performance benchmarking is expected to succeed where market forces failed in producing efficiency gains. The consultation paper ‘Fit for the future’ published by the Department of Health and Social Services in May 1998 implies that the same changes will apply in Northern Ireland too.
Benjamin Franklin remarked in 1789 that ‘in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes’. To these two certainties the economist would add that of the scarcity of resources, as ‘the central economic problem for society is how to reconcile the conflict between people’s virtually limitless desires for goods and services and the scarcity of resources (labour, machinery and raw materials) with which these goods and services can be produced’.
Pharmaceutical companies report that in their dynamic, research and technology intensive industry, competitiveness is synonymous with innovativeness. That is, companies must invest in product research and development (R&D) to stay ahead. To afford this type of strategy, companies seek adequate reimbursement for their time, risk, and investments.
This paper examines the economic aspects of the forces driving the emergence of biotechnology firms, and the implications of this for the organisation of research and development (R&D) and industrial structure in the pharmaceutical industry.
It may seem odd that someone from the most overpriced, wasteful and inequitable health care system in the industrialised world should pen a report on how to make the UK National Health Service (NHS) more cost-effective. Yet from the very deregulated nature of US markets have emerged useful lessons, as the leading buyers (that's American for 'commissioners') face up to all the ways that they did not save money during the 1980s when they thought they had. My aim is to employ familiarity with both systems in order to extract 'adaptable policy lessons' that could be used in the UK.