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

Research

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

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

Title
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2006
AuthorsMorgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C, Roughead E, Kirk R, Kanavos P, Menon D
JournalHealth affairs (Project Hope)Health.Aff.(Millwood)
Volume25
Issue2
Pages337 - 347
Date Published2006
KeywordsAustralia, Canada, Decision Making, Organizational, Drug Approval/economics/organization & administration, Economics, Pharmaceutical, Evidence-Based Medicine, Formularies as Topic, Government Agencies, Great Britain, Health Policy, Humans, Insurance Coverage, Insurance, Pharmaceutical Services, New Zealand, Time Factors, United States
AbstractMany countries have centralized the clinical and economic assessments necessary for evidence-based drug coverage policy. We analyze such processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. These countries apply comparable approaches to the assessment and appraisal of evidence but apply the processes to different types of drugs and use the reviews within different decision-making contexts. Review processes applied to all medicines and clearly tied to coverage decisions appear to influence national drug use. Rigor of process and transparency of data and rationale are believed to be important for maximizing the impact and political acceptability of the processes.
Citation Key449