Centralized drug review processes: Are they fair?

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 200-211

  Mitton, Craig R ^a   McMahon, Meghan ^b   Morgan, Steve ^b   Gibson, Jennifer ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Accountability for reasonableness; Centralized drug review; Fair process; International comparison; Priority setting

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DRUG; ETHICS; TRANSPARENCY;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CENTRALIZATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NEW ZEALAND; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; TELEPHONE; UNITED KINGDOM;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DRUG COSTS; FORMULARIES; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; NEW ZEALAND; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RATE SETTING AND REVIEW; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; EURASIA; EUROPE; NEW ZEALAND; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 33646377631     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.049     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anis A.H., Guh D., and Wang X. A dog's breakfast: Prescription drug coverage varies widely across Canada. Medical Care 39 4 (2001) 315-326
2. Birch S., and Gafni A. The 'NICE' approach to technology assessment: An economics perspective. Health Care Management Science 7 1 (2004) 35-41
3. Braae R., McNee W., and Moore D. Managing pharmaceutical expenditure while increasing access. The pharmaceutical management agency (PHARMAC) experience. Pharmacoeconomics 16 6 (1999) 649-660
4. CCOHTA. Procedure for common drug review (2003), Ottawa, CCOHTA
5. Cookson R., McDaid D., and Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: Is national guidance distorting allocation of resources?. British Medical Journal 323 7315 (2001) 743-745
6. Cremieux P.Y., Meilleur M.-C., Ouellette P., Petit P., Zelder M., and Potvin K. Public and private pharmaceutical spending as determinants of health outcomes in Canada. Health Economics 14 2 (2005) 107-116
7. Cremieux P.Y., Ouellette P., and Pilon C. Health care spending as determinants of health outcomes. Health Economics 8 7 (1999) 627-639
8. Daniels N., and Sabin J. What are fairness and consistency in a national pharmacy benefit?. Medical Care 39 4 (2001) 312-314
9. Daniels N., and Sabin J. Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? (2002), Oxford University Press, Oxford
10. Daniels N., Teagarden J.R., and Sabin J.E. An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Affairs 22 1 (2003) 125-137
11. Davis P. "Tough but fair"? The active management of the New Zealand drug benefits scheme by an independent Crown agency. Australian Health Review 28 2 (2004) 171-181
12. Gafni A., and Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National health service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 21 3 (2003) 149-157
13. Gibson, J.L., Mitton, C., Martin, D.K., Donaldson, C., & Singer, P.A. (2006). Ethics and economics: Does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, in press.
14. Gregoire J.P., MacNeil P., Skilton K., Moisan J., Menon D., Jacobs P., et al. Inter-provincial variation in government drug formularies. Canadian Journal of Public Health 92 4 (2001) 307-312
15. Ham C., and Coulter A. Explicit and implicit rationing: Taking responsibility and avoiding blame for health care choices. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 6 3 (2001) 163-169
16. In: Ham C., and Robert G. (Eds). Reasonable rationing (2003), Philadelphia, Open University Press
17. Hill S., Henry D., and Stevens A. The use of evidence in drug selection: The Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Informing judgment: Case studies of health policy and research in six Countries (2001), Milbank Memorial Fund, New York
18. Hill S.R., Mitchell A.S., and Henry D.A. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Journal of the American Medical Association 283 16 (2000) 2116-2121
19. Holm S. Developments in Nordic countries-goodbye to the simple solutions. In: Coulter A., and Ham C. (Eds). The global challenge of health care rationing (2002), Open University Press, Buckingham
20. Hope T. Evidence-based patient choice and psychiatry. Evidence Based Mental Health 5 4 (2002) 100-101
21. MacDonald K., and Potvin K. Interprovincial variation in access to publicly funded pharmaceuticals: A review based on the WHO anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system. CPJ 137 7 (2004) 29-34
22. Martin D.K., Abelson J., and Singer P.A. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 7 4 (2002) 222-229
23. Martin D.K., Giacomini M., and Singer P.A. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy 61 3 (2002) 279-290
24. Martin D.K., Hollenberg D., MacRae S., Madden S., and Singer P. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: A qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy 66 3 (2003) 295-303
25. Martin D.K., Pater J.L., and Singer P.A. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: A qualitative case study. Lancet 358 9294 (2001) 1676-1681
26. Martin D.K., Shulman K., Santiago-Sorrell P., and Singer P. Priority setting and hospital strategic planning: A qualitative case study. Journal of Health Services Research 8 (2003) 197-201
27. Martin D.K., and Singer P. A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions. Health Care Analysis 11 1 (2003) 59-68
28. Martin D.K., Singer P.A., and Bernstein M. Access to intensive care unit beds for neurosurgery patients: A qualitative case study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 74 9 (2003) 1299-1303
29. Miller Jr. R.D., and Frech H.E. Is there a link between pharmaceutical consumption and improved health in OECD countries?. Pharmacoeconomics 18 Suppl. 1 (2000) 33-45
30. Mitton C., and Donaldson C. Resource allocation in health care: Health economics and beyond. Health Care Analysis 11 3 (2003) 245-257
31. NICE. Technology appraisal process: Guidance for appellants (2004), London, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence
32. NICE. Process manuals (2005), London, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence
33. PausJenssen A., Singer P.A., and Detsky A.S. How Ontario's formulary committee makes recommendations. Pharmacoeconomics 21 (2003) 285-294
34. Pfizer Pvt Ltd v Birkett. (1999). Federal Court of Australia: Canberra.
35. PHARMAC. Operating policies and procedures of the pharmaceutical management agency (PHARMAC) (2001), Wellington, PHARMAC
36. PHARMAC. Consumer advisory committee (2004), Wellington, PHARMAC
37. PHARMAC. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis (2004), Wellington, PHARMAC
38. Sheldon T.A., Cullum N., Dawson D., Lankshear A., Lowson K., Watt I., et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. British Medical Journal 329 7473 (2004) 999