Relationship between pharmaceutical company user fees and drug approvals in Canada and Australia: A hypothesis-generating study

Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Volumn 40, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 2216-2222

  Lexchin, Joel ^a,b,c  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Australia; Canada; Drug approval; Pharmaceutical industry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HYPOTHESIS; INCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; TAX;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; FEES AND CHARGES; HUMANS;

EID: 33845622895     PISSN: 10600280     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1H117     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. KPMG Consulting LP. Report volume 1: review of the Therapeutic Products Programme cost recovery initiative. Ottawa: June 16, 2000.
2. Australian National Audit Office. Drug evaluation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration: Department of Health and Family Services. Audit report no. 8 1996-97. Canberra: AGPS, 1996.
3. Australian National Audit Office. Drug evaluation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration-follow-up audit. Department of Health and Aged Care, Therapeutic Goods Administration. Canberra: Auslnfo, 2001.
4. Health Canada. Departmental performance. Ottawa, 2000. www.tbs-sct. gc.ca/rma/dpr/99-00/hc-sc/hc9900dpr02_e.asp (accessed 2005 Mar 25).
5. Health Canada: drugs & health products. Annual reports. www.hc-sc.gc. ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/docs/performrendement/arra/index_e.html (accessed 2005 Mar 25).
6. Health Canada, guidance for industry: management of drug submissions. Health Products and Food Branch, 2005. www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/ applic-demande/guide-id/mgmt-gest/mands_gespd_e.html (accessed 2006 Nov 15).
7. Department of Health and Ageing. Publications by topic-annual reports. www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/publicat-annual reports.htm (accessed 2005 Mar 25).
8. Rawson NSB, Kaitin KI, Thomas KE, Perry G. Drug review in Canada: a comparison with Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Drug Inf J 1998;32:1133-41.
9. Rawson NSB. Time required for approval of new drugs in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States in 1996-1998. CMAJ 2000;162:501-4.
10. Rawson NSB. Timeliness of review and approval of new drugs in Canada from 1999 through 2001: is progress being made? Clin Ther 2003;25: 1230-47.
11. StatView 5.0.1. Gary, NC: SAS Institute, 1999.
12. Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. Improving health through innovation: a new deal for Canadians. Ottawa, September 2002. www.innovation.gc.ca/go/innovation/site.nsf/vDownload/SectorReports_ e/$file/Pharmaceuticals-e.pdf (accessed 2005 Mar 25).
13. Therapeutic Products Directorate. Business transformation progress report. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2004.
14. Baume P. A question of balance: report on the future of drug evaluation in Australia. Canberra: AGPS, 1991.
15. Lofgren H, de Boer R. Pharmaceuticals in Australia: developments in regulation and governance. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:2397-407.
16. Abraham J, Davis C. A comparative analysis of drug safety withdrawals in the UK and the US (1971-1992): implications for current regulatory thinking and policy. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:881-92.
17. Drug safety withdrawals in the US not linked to speed of FDA approvals. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development Impact Report 2005;7(5):1-4.
18. Drugs Directorate. Strategic framework for the drugs programme 1996-1999. Ottawa: Health Canada, Health Protection Branch, May 1996.
19. Eadie MJ. The secrecy of drug regulatory information. Aust Prescr 2002; 25:78-9.
20. Lexchin J, Mintzes B. Transparency in drug regulation: mirage or oasis? CMAJ 2004;171:1363-5.
21. Office of Inspector General. PDA's review process for new drug applications: a management review. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 2003.