What is EMMS?

The Economic, Marketing, and Management Sciences (EMMS) Section of AAPS represents an opportunity for pharmaceutical scientists in the EMMS field to join with other pharmaceutical scientists of all disciplines in advancing innovative and progressive pharmaceutical therapies. Public policy and scientific agendas in the interest of patient well-being and scientific advancement are explored and nurtured through the Section's programming. Emphasis is placed on economic and policy environment with focused attention on the marketing and management aspects of pharmaceuticals. Members of the Section bring the perspectives of the social sciences to the discussions and deliberations of the Association. The Section's primary functions are: (1) to stimulate research in areas of economic and policy interests to the pharmaceutical sciences; (2) to serve as a forum and conduit for distribution of information; and, (3) to promote and support intellectual and professional growth.

EMMS Perspectives

by William McGhon, Ph.D.; Ron Corey, Ph.D., Jon Schommer, Ph.D.; Craig Pedersen, Ph.D.; and Prosonno Gore, Ph.D.

The Economic, Marketing and Management Sciences (EMMS) Section is considered by some to be the "business end" and "value-added" component of the various AAPS scientific academies. With concerns about rising drug and health care costs, EMMS members are conducting important research to help us all understand how to provide quality health reasonable cost.. The Economic Sciences members conduct pharmacoeconomic analyses, health economic studies, and budget impact analyse for medical therapies and pharmacy services. Those involved in the Marketing Sciences, conduct marketing research, focus groups, and survey research to assess patient needs for new interventions and satisfaction with current products. In the Management Sciences, our members examine the principles of strategic planning, finance, accounting and organizational behavior to improve the operation and balance sheets of pharmacies and firms.

For the benefits of the non-EMMS member, we provide a brief look at the exciting i orld of Economic Science. There are expanding developments in the evolution of pharmacoeconomic tools to assist decision-makers and managers in finding economically sound ways to advance patient care. The general discipline of pharmacoeconomics involves methodologies to evaluate the input and outcomes of health systems and services. There are methodologies used to evaluate the economic decisions in today's health cart, system. A few are Listed in Table I.

One of the older tools is cost benefit analysis (CBA) which requires inputs and patient outcomes to be translated into monetary,-te .,.This remains difficult, as one must cost the value of pain, or life itself. Although it also requires inputs in monetary terms, cost utility analysis (CUA) is becoming a more popular method because it allows dollars for input and patient preferences for outputs. Cost effectiveness nd cost minimization are the, most popular methods to evaluate new drugs in the same disease area.

Quality of Life (QOL) is a fast-growing research area and an increasing number of QOL studies are being conducted to demonstrate potential differences between products. Decision analysis is a sophisticated methodology that often involves complex mathematical and statistical models to examine therapy options and patient outcomes over time.

There are many challenges in the evolution of economic methods. A major issue is the need to specify the budget impact and perspectives of the different audiences affected by an evaluation. Appropriate alternative therapies are also debated, since comparison of all therapies would be financially prohibitive. Effectiveness versus efficacy is, debated, because the efficacy from a randomized-controtted clinical trial May not be reflected in the "real world" cost impact of a new therapy once a drug is used in general clinical practice where we are concerned with effectiveness.

In pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research, we are learning that we must focus on the patients total health status, not just the tab test values. We are learning that we must adjust for patient differences in demo graphics, compliance, severity of illness, and co-morbidities. Whenever possible we should include in our analyses patient utilities and the perspectives of all parties, including consumers, providers, employers, and governments.

In the future, we will all no-doubt increasing public demand for more cost effective health care, and we will all be affected by the puzzle of how to pa for high quality health care and the new breakthrough medicines. It is expected that we will hear more demands by employers and insurers to "pay for outcomes." EMMS members and methodologies wit[ be at the forefront of solutions to these pressing problems.