Conference Conclusions and

Recommendations
What action for national stakeholders?
MODERATOR
Prof. Dr. Josef Smolen
Past-President, EULAR
This morning we heard
 Miklos Soltesz – on how prevention is integral to
disability policy
 Paul Emery – on the Brussels declaration and the
challenge of RMD policy making
 Marios Kouloumas – on the personal and society
consequences of living with RMDs and how patients have
worked together to make work a priority for stakeholders
 Alison Hammond - on the crucial need for social
participation and rehabilitation policies
This morning we heard
 Ingemar Petersson – on the policies and interventions
needed to improve work capacity
 Gyula Poor – on data in Hungary and the exciting
prospect of tackling RMDs in Hungary
 Carol Black – on the essential role of fomulating national
plans to improve patient outcomes
 Stefaan Poriau – on nutrition as an intervention for
those living with osteoporosis
WORKING GROUPS REPORTBACK

Implementing EULAR/Fit for Work RMD

recommendations nationally
Breakout 1:
Dame Carol Black Marios Kouloumas
Breakout 2:
Ingemar Petersson, Maxime Dougados

Presentations and moderated discussion

 Exchange better data on prevalence, incidence and costs of RMDs
as well as examples of improving working conditions for workers
with RMDs with other national governments and at the EU level
What actions would be the most appropriate to implement this
recommendation?
At the Member States level? Responsibility for action?

 National registries are key – with  Physician and patient orgs

national data. EU level data are useful,
but national data will drive national
actions. SO: we must define the
questions the registry is there to answer
 There needs to be a ‘standard of quality’
of registries to make them credible
 Sharing the data remains a challenge
 Publish registry results to provide
evidence base for policy
 Partnership with politicians
 Each country must sign up to a standard
for data collection – policy makers
 There are superb networks that National
units can join (EUMUSC.net, HTA
exchange) - physicians
 Rheumatology groups (physicians and
patient partnership)
Pursue active labour market policies which allow employees with
RMDs to remain in work or reintegrate into the workforce; ensure
this includes flexibility in welfare benefits which allows workers to
earn income and claim financial support
What actions would be the most appropriate to implement this
recommendation?

At the Member States level? Responsibility for action?

 Early agreement on action –  Patient groups and employers – and

government and employers informed trade unions - united to lobby gov’t
by patient voices must work together
to identify the patient as soon as
diagnosed to intervene to support
workplace flexibility
 Employers groups with patient groups
 Employers should be lobbyists
themselves for flexible working hours
and conditions = protection of
economic investment  High level ministerial engagement,
 Disability and its prevention is key to such as today and yesterday
enlightened policy
Implement national care plans, with adequate resourcing, for
people with RMDs which would promote coordination and
cooperation between health and social security institutions and
employers, and would ensure improved access to optimal care
What actions would be the most appropriate to implement this
recommendation?
At the Member States level? Responsibility for action?

 Silos of responsibilities must be broken

down – cross-gov’t working over time,  Politicians and government
between Gov’t Departments infrastructure must take initiative to
open communication
 National care plans must consider
patients, physicians and employers –  All stakeholders.
formulation must be with all these at
the start

 Make the a case for a ‘national director’

such as in the UK – for Health and Work  Dept of Health, Dept of Work/Labour
ministers to work together
Adapt Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) and health
economic evaluation targets to take into account the clinical and
societal impact of RMDs on the patient, and the individual as an
employee
What actions would be the most appropriate to implement this
recommendation?

At the Member States level? Responsibility for action?

 Disseminate information about HTAs  Patient & academic organisations

an their usefulness  Governments - Patient & academic
 Involve patients and other organisations
stakeholders in HTAs and  Governments
educate/empower them
 Add alternative assessments of cost-
benefit analyses to traditional HTAs
with narrow scope
 Priority needs to be given to research at (the EU) and national
levels on the impact of RMDs on employees, and the health
economic benefits of early intervention and better clinical
evaluation of employees suffering from RMDs
What actions would be the most appropriate to implement this
recommendation?

At the Member States level? Responsibility for action?

 Compilation of data at both national and  All actors

European levels; validation of tools
 Advocate increased research support
(FP8 + national programmes)  EULAR (EU) & national organisations
 Enhance cooperation between clinical
research and health economists  Researchers
 Positioning: focus on return on  Advocacy groups
investment, prevalence and burden of  EUMUSC.NET
diseases
Ensure that primary care physicians closely collaborate with
rheumatologists and other specialists and are supported in making
decisions about work disability for workers with MSDs

What actions would be the most appropriate to implement this

recommendation?
At the Member States level? Responsibility for action?

 Expose undergraduates to  Universities/ Medical schools,

rheumatology and RMD patients Medical Societies, Education
departments
 Involve social security bodies  Governments

 Combined training & education  EULAR and other organisations

events (eg. EULAR congress of physicians and researchers
session with primary care
physicians)