ArticlePharmacoEconomics2003
Ontario's formulary committee: how recommendations are made.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2018Article
- Pitfalls of prioritizing cost-effectiveness in the assessment of medical innovation.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018Article
- The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?The International journal of health planning and management · 2017Article
- Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- Reimbursement decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: influence of policy and clinical and economic factors.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Article
- Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.BMC health services research · 2008Review
- What do district health planners in Tanzania think about improving priority setting using 'Accountability for reasonableness'?BMC health services research · 2007Article
- Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Review
- Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: the influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision-making levels.PharmacoEconomics · 2005Review
- Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success.BMC health services research · 2004Article
- 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 · 2004Article
- Priority setting in surgery: improve the process and share the learning.World journal of surgery · 2003Article
- Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: a transdisciplinary study.BMC health services research · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
12600223What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.