Pharmaceutical policies in Canada: Another example of federal-provincial discord

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 162, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 523-526

  Anis, Aslam H ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b ST PAUL S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c CENTRE FOR HEALTH EVALUATION AND OUTCOME SCIENCES   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LABELING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; PATENT; REVIEW;

EID: 0034701084     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. National health expenditure trends, 1975-1999. Ottawa: The Institute; 1999.
2. Health Canada. Conference on national approaches to phannacare: proceedings; 1998 Jan 18-20; Ottawa: Health Canada Publications; 1998.
3. Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Canada health action: building on the legacy. Final report of the National Forum on Health. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services; 1997. Report no.: H2I126/5-1-1997E.
4. Anis AH. Substitution laws, insurance coverage, and generic drug use. Med Care 1994;32:240-56.
5. Bacovsky RA. Drug submission, reviev; and approval process for provincial and territorial government sponsored prescription drug plans in Canada. Prepared for the joint liaison committee between the pharmaceutical industry and the Ontario government. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health; 1997.
6. United States General Accounting Office. Prescription drugs: companies typically charge more in the United States than in Canada. Detroit: US General Accounting Office; 1992. GAO/HRD-92-110.
7. Patented Medicines Prices Review Board. International price mnparison studies. Ottawa: The Board; 1993.
8. Anis AH, Wen Q. Price regulation of pharmaceutical in Canada. Health Econ 1998;7:21-38.
9. Narine L, Senathirajah, Smith T. Evaluating reference-based pricing: initial findings and prospects. CMAJ 1999;161(3):286-8. Available: w-wK-.cma.ca /cmaj/vol-16 l/issue-3/0286.htm
10. Bourgault C, Elstein E, Le Lorier J, Suissa S. Reference-based pricing of prescription drugs: exploring the equivalence of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. CMA] 1999;161(3):255-60. Available www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-I61 /issue-3/0255.htm
11. Lipsy RJ. Institutional formularies: the relevance of pharmacoeconomic analysis to formulary decisions. Pbannacocconomics I992;l(4):265-81.
12. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluations of pharmaceutical;: Canada. 1st ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA; 1994.
13. Commonwealth Department of Human Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.
14. National Pharmaceutical Strategy Planning Workshop. Health Canada; 1993 Jun 7-9; Ottawa.
15. Detsky A. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada. Ptarmacoeconomics 1993;3(5):354-61.
16. Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, Kennedy W, Schubert F, Menon D, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceutical. Canadian Collaborative Workshop for Pharmacoeconomics. Pbarmacoeconomics 1996;9(6):535-59.
17. Anis AH, Guh D, Wang X. A dog's breakfast: public coverage for prescription drugs varies widely across Canada. In: Abstracts of the International Health Economics Association 2nd World Conference; 1999 June 6-9; Rotterdam, Netherlands. 1999. p. 5-6.