Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom

Health Affairs

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 337-347

  Morgan, Steven G ^a,b,c   McMahon, Meghan ^d   Mitton, Craig ^e   Roughead, Elizabeth ^f   Kirk, Ray ^g   Kanavos, Panos ^h   Menon, Devidas ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Centre for Health Services and Policy Research   (Canada)

^c Program in Pharmaceutical Policy   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

^h LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DRUG APPROVAL; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INSURANCE; NEW ZEALAND; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHARMACOECONOMICS; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; TIME; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DRUG APPROVAL; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FORMULARIES; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; NEW ZEALAND; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33645662113     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 02782715     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. A.M. Garber, "Evidence-based Coverage Policy," Health Affairs 20, no. 5 (2001): 62-82;
2. P.J. Neumann, "Evidence-based, and Value-based Formulary Guidelines," Health Affairs 23, no. 1 (2004): 124-134;
3. and S. Morgan, K. Bassett, and B. Mintzes, "Outcomes-based Drug Coverage in British Columbia," Health Affairs 23, no. 3 (2004): 269-276.
4. A. Oliver, E. Mossialos, and R. Robinson, "Health Technology Assessment and Its Influence on Health-Care Priority Setting," International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20, no. 1 (2004): 1-10.
5. Utilization was depicted using defined daily doses (DDDs). See World Health Organization, Guidelines for ATC Classification and DDD Assignment 2004, 7th ed. (Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 2004). Where DDDs were not available, milligrams of active ingredients were used as standardized measures.
6. Interviews lasted approximately forty-five minutes and were recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. The University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board approved the project. The interview instruments for each country are available online, at http://content. healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/337/DCl.
7. N. Daniels, J.R. Teagarden, and J.E. Sabin, "An Ethical Template for Pharmacy Benefits," Health Affairs 22, no. 1 (2003): 125-137.
8. See the Drug Effectiveness Review Project Web site, http://www.ohsu.edu/ drugeffectiveness/index.htm (accessed 30 September 2005).