The case-mix method involves combining cases with similar complexities and medical services. The process of treating one episode of the disease and receiving treatment is the research unit, thus achieving different medical units. The feasibility of the calculation method is verified by calculating the public hospital consumption ratio, medical income, health materials expenditure indicators, and the differences between the various types of surgical combinations. A decision-making basis can then be provided for the creation of government indicator standards.

Medical records and data on the expenditure of medical consumables for the first and fourth quarters of 2017 were collected from seven third-class provincial hospitals. The medical consumption ratio for different diseases and surgical methods was calculated for the case-mix groups using a weighting method. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and the independent samples t-test.

There were significant differences in the proportions of combined use for different types of diseases. The same combination also had significant differences between different hospitals. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the operating group's consumption ratio was significantly lower than in the first quarter (p = 0.000).

It is reasonable to calculate the proportion of consumption by combined weighted analysis, which is also fairer for hospitals with better technical levels. This calculation method can be used by governments to manage the use and cost of medical consumables in hospitals.

The French health technology assessment (HTA) body, Haute Autorité de la Santé (HAS), started to provide early advice on evidence generation plans to pharmaceutical manufacturers in 2010. It became an official mission in 2016. Requests are eligible when the product has a new mechanism of action, if there is an unmet or partially met medical need in the claimed indication and when the pivotal study has not yet started. This analysis aims to provide a first overview of clinical developments for which pharmaceutical companies sought an early dialogue with HAS.

For each product that went through an early dialogue procedure with HAS, information regarding the clinical development was collected on pharmaceuticals companies’ pipelines, clinicaltrials.gov, the website of the European Medicine Agency (EMA) and HAS's internal database.

By the end of 2018, HAS has performed 84 early dialogues of which 53 were conducted in collaboration with the EMA and/or others European HTA bodies. They were mainly focused on phase III trials. Following early dialogue, the clinical study for which the company sought advice was not yet implemented in 25 cases. When the clinical trial was effectively launched, results were negative in 10 cases, positive in 11 cases and the study was still ongoing for 29 products. In nine cases, the clinical development was officially withdrawn or suspended before the initiation of the trial. Overall, only eight medicinal products were appraised by HAS, they all obtained a clinical added value score.

The success rate of clinical development for products that underwent an early dialogue procedure tends to be higher than data from literature, although it is likely to decrease in follow-up analysis. This could be partially explained by HAS's eligibility criteria that restrict early dialogues to promising products and by the scientific recommendations provided to pharmaceuticals companies.

Economic evaluations are a growing field of interest in the rehabilitation area. Research has questioned the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations. Poor reporting hinders the ability to provide accurate information for health care decision making. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to document on overall reporting quality of the published literature for rehabilitation economic evaluations; to identify if reporting quality has improved in health economic evaluations within the field of rehabilitation therapy since the publication of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS); and to identify factors that could influence the reporting trends.

We searched databases for economical evaluations performed in the rehabilitation area published between 2013 and 2018. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers using Covidence software. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer using Microsoft Excel and independently verified by another reviewer. The quality of reporting was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the CHEERS checklist.

The search of the literature resulted in a total of 2195 published articles. Of these, 117 were considered to be potentially relevant. Independent review of these 117 articles led to the inclusion of 88 articles. This study is ongoing and complete results will be presented at the conference. Fifty papers have been analyzed in full. In general, the quality of reporting of the economical evaluations in the rehabilitation field was poor. The total mean and median for the CHEERS checklist was 17 points (out of 25) (range 8-24). Most of the analyzed studies did not report important methodological features of the economical evaluation as evaluated by the CHEERS checklist.

The quality of reporting of economic evaluations in the rehabilitation field is poor and inconsistent. Commonly the methods of the analyzed studies are under reported, thereby creating challenges in determining whether the information presented is sound.

The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review programs incorporate perspectives and experiences from patients and family members who might be affected by the resulting funding recommendation. Perspectives are provided by patient groups who use different approaches to gather patient input.

We analyzed a random sample of ninety-three patient input submissions, drawn from a sampling frame of 532 submissions given to CADTH between June 2010 and June 2016. We looked at how groups described their information gathering methods in the original submissions or the published Clinical Guidance Reports.

Approaches were categorized according to whether they involved primary (n = 86) or secondary data collection (n = 130) and further sub categorized according to how data was collected. Primary data included: personal experiences, as described by the submission's author (n = 16); surveys conducted specifically for the submission (n=34); and new interviews of patients and family members on disease and drug experiences (n = 36). Half (forty-seven of ninety-three) of the patient input submissions included experiences of one or more patients who had received the drug under review. Secondary data included: published literature (n = 31); existing surveys (n = 27); past conversations with patients and family members (n = 36); experiences of patient group staff interacting with patients and family members (n = 19); and advice from clinical experts (n = 17). Many patient input submissions (sixty-eight out of ninety-three) reported multiple approaches to collect data. Use of two approaches was most common (thirty-seven out of ninety-three) with five or six approaches used in three of ninety-three submissions.

Despite resource and timing challenges, many patient groups gather primary data to share with CADTH and find individuals with experience of the drug under review.

Extracorporeal circulatory membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology that allows recovery of adults in cardiorespiratory failure with encouraging results, but is not available in the Brazilian universal public health system (SUS) due to high implementation costs. Time-driven activity based costing (TDABC) is applied to measure processes in an economic perspective by identifying opportunities to make processes more efficient through the reduction of resources used in each activity. The literature has explored the use of TDABC to measure costs related with clinical procedures and technologies in microcosting studies, identifying opportunities to improve the process by making it more efficient. This research measures the real costs to implement ECMO in Brazil to compare with the current public reimbursement system.

This study applied TDABC using data from 6 patients to measure costs of ECMO intervention considering the public perspective in Brazil. In sequence, standard price payed by SUS was used to estimate the current reimbursement amount received by the hospital for ECMO procedure. Cost variable analysis was conducted to understand when and how patients receiving ECMO are using hospital resources. Cost data were collected from an academic public hospital using an average of 18 months (2016–2017) for the department costs.

The real average cost was USD 128,923. Most significant resource costs was medical staff, particularly for the three survivor patients, and the ECMO equipment presented the second highest cost. ECMO activities were separated into: before implantation of ECMO, period using ECMO, intensive care post-ECMO and rehabilitation, being the period where ECMO is the most expensive, particularly in nurse and physician costs. The SUS average was USD 31,437, which shows a difference of USD 97,485 between the real ECMO cost and the public reimbursement in Brazil.

A critical element of the propagation of ECMO in Brazil and its reimbursement by public health system is the high cost and out-of-date standard payments by the Ministry of Health. Effort to implement a trustworthy method to guide decisions of SUS for the adoption and financing new technologies is essential to contribute to the optimization of public health policies in a country with a universal health system and limited resources dedicated to health sectors.