Centralising drug review to improve coverage decisions: economic lessons from (and for) Canada


Related Publications

Suter E, Misfeldt R, Mallinson S, Wilhelm A, Boakye O, Marchildon G, et al. Comparative Review of the Policy Landscape of Team-based Primary Health Care Service Delivery in Western Canada. Alberta Health Services; 2014.
Laberge M, Pang J, Walker K, Wong ST, Hogg W, Wodchis WP. QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) Canada: A focus on the aspects of primary care most highly rated by current patients of primary care practices. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2014.
McGregor MJ, Abu-Laban RB, Ronald L, McGrail KM, Andrusiek D, Baumbusch J, et al. Nursing Home Characteristics Associated with Resident Transfers to Emergency Department. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2012;33(1):38-48.
Koehoorn M, McLeod CB, Fan JK, McGrail KM, Barer ML, Cote P, et al. Do private clinics or expedited fees improve wait- or return-to-work times for injured workers following knee surgery? Healthcare Policy. 2011;5(3):17-26.
Sutherland JM, Barer ML, Evans RG, Crump RT. Will paying the piper change the tune? Healthcare Policy. 2011;6(4):16-24.

Publication Topics

Centralising drug review to improve coverage decisions: economic lessons from (and for) Canada

Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2006
AuthorsMorgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C
JournalApplied health economics and health policyAppl.Health.Econ.Health.Policy.
Pages67 - 73
Date Published2006
KeywordsCanada, Decision Making, Organizational, Drug Utilization Review, Economics, Pharmaceutical/organization & administration, Efficiency, Organizational, Evidence-Based Medicine, Formularies as Topic, Health Services Research, Humans, Insurance Coverage/organization & administration, Insurance, Pharmaceutical Services, National Health Programs
AbstractDrug coverage decisions require information about clinically relevant benefits and risks, as well as economic information about direct and indirect costs, in comparison with relevant treatment alternatives. A recent Canadian initiative aims to improve the evidentiary basis for drug coverage decisions through centralised evaluation of the clinical and economic value of new drug products. Centralised review can make important, 'positive' contributions to decision making by raising the evidentiary basis for decisions. Even in the absence of a single-payer for medicines, such information can directly inform decisions focussed on matters of technical efficiency. Centralised review also provides necessary but not sufficient information for the many decisions in this sector that concern allocative efficiency and therefore have 'normative' implications. Thus, in addition to processes for collecting and critically assessing clinical and economic data, effective priority setting requires processes at a local level for engaging affected populations in the consideration of the trade-offs inherent in coverage decisions.
Citation Key437