For these reasons, the courts have classified insurance contracts as the general category of membership contracts and have developed slightly more guarantees for the interpretation of insurance contracts (Baker 1994). Insurance contracts have long been regarded as paradigmatic liability contracts (see contracts: legal perspectives). Many English-speaking Commonwealth of Nations countries that have structured their training in a neoliberal market, such as New Zealand, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, England and Ireland, have adopted national certification frameworks. They can also be taken into account in Kintzer`s typology, with people created in New Zealand and South Africa being prescriptive and more favourable to Scotland, Ireland and Australia (Young, 2005: 12) and almost voluntarily for certain sectors. Some argue that a certification framework is part of the neoliberal agenda, because it brings education together and thus contributes “to the creation of education markets by providing a common qualifying currency. This common currency, like the money of an economy, is seen as promoting increased competition between diploma providers, since all institutions recognize and reward learning in the same way” (Strathdee, 2003: 157). However, even in countries that have strongly marketed their higher education, such as New Zealand, Australia and, to a lesser extent, England, national certification frameworks are encouraged to minimize barriers to vertical and horizontal transfer and to “maximize access, flexibility and portability between different areas of education and work and different places of learning” (Young , 2003: 224). However, it is relatively unclear that national certification frameworks are meeting these goals (Young, 2005: 1). In 23 countries, the regulatory framework provided for a review of PRT prices. In Denmark and Ireland, revisions have also taken place at regular intervals, but they are based on a voluntary agreement between public payers and the pharmaceutical industry instead of legislation. Countries with revision or monitoring legislation had either fixed dates or fixed intervals between one month and five years. Of the 26 countries that followed prices and corrected prices, 18 did this exercise regularly, with the remainder on some occasions. The duration of the intervals ranged from 3 months to 5 years.
In some cases, regular price controls or revisions are linked to certain medicines: in Norway, the prices of 250 substances representing about three quarters of the value market have been revised each year and, in Spain and Ireland, prices of non-patented medicines have been regularly updated once a year. Five countries (Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Germany and Hungary) indicated that they did not have regular intervals for price changes. The competent authorities of two countries (Germany and Hungary) have not reviewed and monitored drug prices at all. Despite the existence of the law in Hungary, the details regulation has not yet been implemented at the time of the investigation.