1. Evaluation of the meeting
Usefulness and time spent on each topic
Evaluation forms were completed by eight participants plus three observers from the MOH of Indonesia. Each topic covered at the meeting was evaluated in terms of:
usefulness |
time spent |
1 = not useful
2 = not too useful
3 = useful
4 = very useful |
1 = too much time
2 = about right
3 = too little time |
The mean scores are shown below.
Topic |
Usefulness |
Time spent |
| |
n |
mean |
n |
mean |
Monday, 24 November 1997 |
|
|
|
|
1. Role of the state in health and drug financing
2. Presentation of report of the first meeting
3. Country presentations (Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand) |
9
9
9 |
3.7
3.6
3.7 |
9
9
9 |
2.1
2.0
2.1 |
Tuesday, 25 November 1997 |
|
|
|
|
4. Field visits
5. Discussion on field visits |
9
9 |
3.9
3.4 |
9
9 |
2.4
2.1 |
Wednesday, 26 November 1997 |
|
|
|
|
6. Presentations of field visit summary reports
7. Review of literature on cost-sharing schemes
8. Experiences of Myanmar EDP in drug financing and sustaining availability of essential drugs
9. National experiences and lessons (group work)
10. National experiences and lessons |
8
8
9
9
9 |
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.6
3.4 |
8
7
9
9
9 |
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0 |
Thursday, 27 November 1997 |
|
|
|
|
11. Drug and health sector reform
12. Experiences in increasing government health and drug budget (roundtable)
13. Identification of country needs and priorities
14. Priorities for working group action (group work)
15. Guidelines and recommendations for country plans of action |
9
6
9
8
8 |
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.1
3.2 |
9
6
9
8
8 |
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0 |
Comments and suggestions on the content and format of the meeting
(Number in brackets indicating the number of persons who commented)
Excellent |
(1) |
Well done |
(1) |
Well designed |
(1) |
Improving participants' knowledge of drug financing |
(1) |
Content very good |
(4) |
Informative |
(2) |
Useful |
(2) |
Friendly |
(1) |
More references should be given to improve understanding |
(1) |
Materials and areas for discussion should be distributed earlier |
(1) |
Group discussion is minimum |
(1) |
Supporting role of Secretariat could be improved |
(1) |
Meeting should have lasted 10 days |
|
Comments and suggestions on travel and other administrative arrangements
(Number in brackets indicating the number of persons who commented)
Excellent |
(1) |
Very good |
(5) |
Very informative |
(1) |
Well arranged |
(2) |
2. Priorities for the next working group meeting
Participants were asked to indicate their top five priorities. It turned out that one participant indicated "priority 1" for every topic; this form was excluded. Six participants completed the form exactly as requested, and two participants gave ratings for each sub-topic. The results are set out below. The highest score corresponds to the highest priority.
Topic |
Score |
Top five topics |
|
1. Cost-sharing for health and drugs
2. Insurance for health and drugs
3. Public financing
4. Health reform and global change]
5. Drug pricing policies and mechanisms |
22
19
15
12
12 |
Topics with less priority |
|
6. Financing mechanisms
7. The use of international loans in the pharmaceutical sector |
7
2 |
Other priorities as indicated by participants |
|
1. Managed care: initiating project and its development
2. Mechanism of private-public mix
3. Inviting representatives from the private sector to the next meeting |
2
1
1 |
* * * * *
Loading...
