The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada?


Related Publications

Smolina K, Weymann D, Morgan S, Ross C, Carleton B. Association between regulatory advisories and codeine prescribing to postpartum women. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2015;313(18):1861-2.
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.

Publication Topics

The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada?

Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2006
AuthorsMcMahon M, Morgan SG, Mitton C
JournalHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Health Policy
Pages339 - 351
Date Published2006
KeywordsCanada, Drug and Narcotic Control/organization & administration, National Health Programs, Policy Making, Reimbursement Mechanisms/standards
AbstractPrescription drugs are one of the fastest growing cost components of modern health care systems. Efforts to control escalating costs while simultaneously maximizing population health outcomes have led many countries to implement restrictive criteria on the funding of certain drugs. While drugs are licensed for sale based on evidence of safety and efficacy versus a placebo, many funders now require evidence of clinical- and cost-effectiveness compared to existing drugs as part of their reimbursement criteria. In some countries, concerns about duplication of drug assessment and administrative effort across different jurisdictions have led to experimentation with various forms of centralized drug review processes. Centralized drug reviews strive to standardize, inform, and improve drug reimbursement decisions through critical assessments of comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. The ultimate objective is to inform formulary listing decisions that both maximize health outcomes and achieve good "value for money". This paper describes the Common Drug Review (CDR), a uniquely Canadian version of a centralized drug review process, and compares it with the much-studied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom. Through this analysis, which draws on prior critiques and experiences of NICE, we highlight several critical issues for pharmaceutical priority setting that must be considered in the operation and appraisal of centralized drug review processes. These include the selection of drugs for review, centralized versus decentralized decision-making, receptor capacity at local decision making levels, and public participation.
Citation Key407