Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12600223›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2003

Ontario's formulary committee: how recommendations are made.

Anne M PausJenssen, Peter A Singer, Allan S Detsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pitfalls of prioritizing cost-effectiveness in the assessment of medical innovation: A comment on Wallis and Detsky guest editorial.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018
    Article
  2. Pitfalls of prioritizing cost-effectiveness in the assessment of medical innovation.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Priority setting for pharmaceuticals. The use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2004
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anne M PausJenssenDepartment of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Peter A Singer
Allan S Detsky

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 1996, the provincial government in Ontario, Canada required pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to list their products on the provincial formulary to provide a formal economic analysis documenting the products' cost effectiveness. The provincial formulary lists pharmaceutical products for which reimbursement is provided for residents on the Ontario Drug Benefit Program (ODB).

objectiveTo describe how listing decisions are made, and specifically the role of economic analysis in this process.

designA qualitative case study approach was taken. Data were analysed using the pattern-matching technique. Data consisted of meeting transcripts and interviews with committee members, which were coded and weighted for analysis using the pattern-matching technique.

settingNine meetings of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee (DQTC), which makes listing recommendations to the ODB, were observed.

participantsSeven individual committee members were interviewed.

resultsComplex economic analyses (i.e. analyses more involved than a simple cost-consequence analysis) played a limited role. The clinical factor dominated the perception of costs. Generic and 'me-too' products with no price premium did not require complex economic analyses. Poor quality analyses were not useful and the DQTC members' lack of in-depth knowledge of health economics influenced the extent to which analyses were discussed. The DQTC did discuss economic issues however, and often performed informal economic analyses to guide decisions.

conclusionsComplex economic analyses had an impact on provincial drug benefit decisions in a limited number of circumstances, principally for expensive innovative products. However, the committee did use some form of economic analysis to guide decisions in almost all cases, and therefore requesting economic analyses, even simple ones, from manufacturers seeking formulary listing is a useful healthcare policy.

Indexed as

Economics, PharmaceuticalGovernment AgenciesPolicy MakingCost-Benefit AnalysisData CollectionFormularies as TopicOntario

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.