Coverage with evidence development for pharmaceuticals: A policy in evolution?

International Journal of Health Services

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 337-354

  Lexchin, Joel ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG; PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

DECISION MAKING; DRUG; HEALTH POLICY; MARKET SYSTEM; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CULTURAL FACTOR; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; RISK MANAGEMENT; STANDARD; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; DECISION MAKING; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; POLICY MAKING; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; RISK SHARING, FINANCIAL; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 79953178975     PISSN: 00207314     EISSN: 15414469     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/HS.41.2.h     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Data and Modelling Section Pharmaceutical Policy and Analysis Branch, Government of Australia. Expenditure and Prescriptions Twelve Months to 30 June 2006. Canberra, 2006. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/ Content/Pharmaceutical+Benefits+Scheme+%28PBS%29-3
2. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug Expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2006. Ottawa, 2007.
3. Tunis, S. R., Stryer, D. B., and Clancy, C. M. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290:1624-1632, 2003.
4. NICE Citizens Council. Only in Research. NICE, London, 2007.
5. Fisher, J. A. Medical Research for Hire: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 2009.
6. Van Spall, H. G. C., et al. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: A systematic sampling review. JAMA 297:1233-1240, 2007.
7. Lee, P. E., et al. Published randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for dementia often lack complete data on harm. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61:1152-1160, 2008.
8. Rising, K., Bacchetti, P., and Bero, L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 5(11):e217, 2008.
9. Turner, E. H., et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N. Engl. J. Med. 358:252-260, 2008.
10. Hutton, J., Trueman, P., and Henshall, C. Coverage with evidence development: An examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23:425-435, 2007.
11. Tunis, S. R., and Chalkidou, K. Coverage with evidence development: A very good beginning, but much to be done. Commentary to Hutton et al. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23:432-435, 2007.
12. O'Harrow, R., Jr. Grass roots seeded by drugmaker: Schering-Plough uses "coalitions" to sell costly treatment. Washington Post, September 12, 2000.
13. Woolley, P. Drug-Company Dollars Come with Side Effects. 2005. http://www.straight.com/article/drug-company-dollars-come-with-side-effects?#
14. Chalkidou, K., Hoy, A., and Littlejohns, P. Making a decision to wait for more evidence: When the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J. R. Soc. Med. 100:453-460, 2007.
15. Medical Services Advisory Committee. MSAC brochure. 2007. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/ 8EC2CE69C35372AFCA25721F00073D9A/File/Brochure-MSAC-Final-160606.pdf
16. Reid, C., et al. The Bosentan Patient Registry. National Medicines Symposium 2006. Canberra, 2006.
17. Barr, S. G., et al. Mandatory pharmacosurveillance: A Canadian model for access to therapy and research. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 22(Suppl. 35):S39-43, 2004.
18. Cooksey, S. D. A Review of UK Health Research Funding. Stationery Office, London, 2006.
19. Department of Health, United Kingdom. Drug Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis (Beta-Interferons and Glatiramer Acetate): Risk-Sharing Scheme. HSC 2002/004, Briefing Note, January 12, 2004. London, 2004. http://www.dh.gov.uk/ en/Healthcare/Primarycare/Primarycaretrusts/DH-4000556
20. Department of Health, United Kingdom. Drug Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis (Beta-Interferon and Glatiramer Acetate): Risk-Sharing Scheme. HSC 2002/004, Briefing Note, November 2006. London, 2006. www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH-063445
21. Department of Health, United Kingdom. Health Service Circular: Cost Effective Provision of Disease Modifying Therapies for People with Multiple Sclerosis. London, February 4, 2002.
22. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determinations with Data Collection as a Condition of Coverage: Coverage with Evidence Development. 2006. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/ncpc-view-document.asp? id=8
23. Carino, T., et al. Medicare's coverage of colorectal cancer drugs: A case study in evidence development and policy. Health Aff. (Millwood) 25:1231-1239, 2005.
24. Tunis, S. R., and Pearson, S. D. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's "coverage with evidence development." Health Aff. (Millwood) 25:1218-1230, 2005.
25. Health Technology Assessment International. Conditional Coverage/Access with Evidence. Edmonton, Alberta, 2009. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=89