PERSONALIZED MEDICINE AS AN UPDATED MODEL OF NATIONAL HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM. PART 2. TOWARDS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The article considers the key problems of the transition of the national health system to a new platform of personalized medicine and,  in particular, pediatrics. In the second part, published in this issue, the main mechanisms for building a new model are analyzed. The main  prerequisites (financial and economic, fundamental research and applied research), the emergence and construction in the structure  of global trends in the development of health care markets, actualized at the end of the last century, are presented. It is indicated  that one of the main incentives for the development of personalized medicine is a noticeable increase in individual and social demand  for preventive drugs and the corresponding tools. The development of programs for managing their own health is gaining in importance,  and new business-development models (including public and private partnerships) are being developed and implemented. The evidence  is examined that a progressive scenario for the development of a model of personalized medicine will provide a significant reduction  in the cost of medical care. A large section of the article is devoted to the development of the provision that the understanding and awareness of the importance of the protection and management of one's own health by a modern state, medical audience and individual citizen  is the most important aspect of the educational and educational activities of a doctor and a nurse. The perspectives of personalized  pediatrics as a global instrument for restructuring the entire healthcare system are considered in detail.

1. Milewicz D.M., Regalado E.S. Use of genetics for personal-ized management of heritable thoracic aortic disease: how do we get there? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149 (2 Suppl): 3–5/. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.07.070

2. Agboola S.O., Ball M., Kvedar J.C., Jethwani K. The future of Connected Health in preventive medicine. QJM 2013; 106 (9): 791–794/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hct088

3. Jakka S., Rossbach M. An economic perspective on personal-ized medicine. HUGO J 2013; 7: 1. DOI:10.1186/1877-6566-7-1

4. Phillips K.A., Sakowski J.A., Trosman J., Douglas M.P., Liang S.-Y., Neu-mann P. The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know. Genet Med 2014; 16 (3): 251–257.

5. Сучков С., Ридинг C., Роуз Н., Ноткинс Э., фон Геррат М., Криден Д. Трансляционная медицина – миф или реальность? Ремедиум 2013; 6: 8–15. [Suchkov S., Riding C., Rouz N., Notkins Je., fon Gerrat M., Kriden D. Translational medicine – myth or reality? Remedium 2013; 6: 8–15. (in Russ)]

6. Suchkov S., Herrera A.S. The role of human photosynthesis in predictive, preventive and personalized medicine. EPMA J 2015; 5 (Suppl 1): A146.

7. Neumann P.J., Fang C.H., Cohen J.T. 30 years of pharmaceutical cost-utility analyses: growth, diversity and methodological improvement. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 861–872.

8. PPPM (Predictive, Preventive and Personalized Medicine) as a New Model of the National and International Healthcare Services and Thus a Promising Strategy to Prevent a Disease: From Basics to Practice. Inter J Clin Med 2014, 5 (14): 855– 870. DOI:10.4236/ijcm.2014.514115

9. Godfrey C., Stewart D., Gossop M. 2004. Economic analysis of costs and consequences of the treatment of drug misuse: 2-year outcome data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS). Addiction 2004; 99: 697–707. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00752.x

10. Jarrett J., Mugford M. Genetic health technology and economic evaluation. A critical review. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2006; 5 (1): 27–35.

11. Phillips K.A., Sakowski A.J., Trosman J., Douglas M.P., Liang S.Y., Neumann P. The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know. Genet Med 2014; 16: 251–257. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.122.

12. Phillips K.A., Sakowski J.A., Liang S.Y. et al. Economic Perspectives on Personalized Health Care and Prevention. Forum for Health Economics and Policy 2013; 16: (2): 57–86.

13. Grosse S.D., Wordsworth S., Payne K. Economic Methods for Valuing the Outcomes of Genetic Testing: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Genetics in Medicine 2008; 10: (9): 648–655. DOI:10.3390/healthcare3041133

14. Lorgelly P.K., Lawson K.D., Fenwick E.A.L., Briggs A.H. Outcome Measurement in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: a Role for the Capability Approach? Inter J Environ Res Publ Health 2010; 7: 2274–2289. DOI:10.3390/ijerph7052274

15. Driscoll T., Nelson D.I., Steenland K., Leigh J., Concha-Bar-rientos M., Fingerhut M., Prüss-Ustün A. The global burden of disease due to occupational carcinogens. Am J Ind Med 2005; 48: 419–431. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20209

16. Indoor air pollution: national burden of disease. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007 (http://www.who.int/in-doorair/publications/indoor_air_national_burden_estimate_ revised.pdf, accessed 8 July, 2009).