Influence of medical insurance schemes and charity assistance projects on regular prophylaxis treatment of the boys with severe haemophilia A in China. Issue 1 (17th November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Z.; Wu, J.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, R.; Li, K.; Zhou, Y.; Wu, R.; Yang, R.; Zhang, X.; Lian, S.; Hu, Q.; Li, X.; Gu, J.; Zhou, R.; Sun, J.; Li, C.; Xu, W.; Poon, M.‐C.; Xiao, J.
• Is Part Of: Haemophilia. Volume 24:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: 126
• Page End: 133
• Publication Date: 2017-11-17
• Subjects: charity -- haemophilia A -- medical insurance -- prophylaxis -- reimbursement; Hemophilia -- Periodicals; 616.1572005
• DOI: 10.1111/hae.13372
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1351-8216

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To explore the influence of medical insurance policy and charity assistance projects on the uptake and discontinuation of regular prophylaxis treatment in Chinese severe haemophilia A children. Methodology: This retrospective study was conducted on children with severe haemophilia A, who received FVIII prophylaxis treatment at 12 haemophilia centres in China from 1 November 2007 to 31 May 2013. Results: The average duration of prophylaxis treatment received by haemophilia children significantly increased from 16.7 weeks in 2008 to 32.8 weeks in 2012 ( P < .001). The main reason for prophylaxis acceptance included dissatisfaction with previous "on‐demand" regimens, availability of improved local medical insurance policies and patient/family awareness of haemophilia. The main reason for subsequent discontinuation of prophylaxis was economic instability. The upper limit of insurance was up to RMB 150 000/y (~USD: 22 000/y) for 80.1% of the insured patients and would be sufficient to cover the continuous low‐dose prophylaxis regimen. However, for many patients the burden of out‐of‐pocket copayment cost represented a risk for poor adherence to regular prophylaxis. In about two third of the patients, the annual out‐of‐pocket copayment cost amounted to >50% of their average annual disposable income. Many patients therefore required assistance from the charity assistance projects, but nonadherence remained prevalent. Conclusion: Medical insurance policy and charity assistance projects helped haemophilia children to accept and continue prophylaxis regimens. It was the proportion of the out‐of‐pocket copayment cost rather than the upper limit of insurance reimbursement that restricted long‐term regular low‐dose prophylaxis in China.