3.8 Article

New drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus: The challenge of the health care sustainability combined with a better patient care access

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/20479700.2023.2210393

关键词

Diabetes; prescribing; pharmacoutilization; prescriptive analysis; dispensing; governance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relaxed prescription regulations have led to an increase in prescribing and dispensing of new drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus. This is in line with post-Covid-19 European policies, bringing therapies closer to the patient. However, it has also resulted in unpredictable healthcare spending. In Italy, the introduction of the National Plan for Reconstruction and Resilience aimed to give more prescribing freedom to General Practitioners, allowing them to directly prescribe certain categories of medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
The increased prescribing and dispensing of new drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus due to less stringent prescription regulations has led both to bringing therapies closer to the patient, as required by post-Covid-19 European policies, and to an unpredictable increase in health care spending. In particular, in Italy, with the introduction of the National Plan for Reconstruction and Resilience, an attempt has been made to give more prescriptive freedom to the General Practitioner (GP). Through the introduction of prescriptive notes, patients can directly go to the primary care physician for the prescription of chronic therapies, without going to the specialist doctor anymore. Note 100, introduced at the beginning of 2022, defines the prescription of specific categories of medicines which are indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and which are directly prescribed by the GP. This study aimed to analyze the prescribing trend of these medicines, by comparing the first half of the year 2021, without Note 100, with the first half of the year 2022, afterwards the introduction of the new regulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据