Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31041614›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2019

A Comparison of Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) Recommendations Amongst the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), Public and Private Payers.

Naghmeh Foroutan, Jean-Eric Tarride, Feng Xie, Fergal Mills, Mitchell Levine

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Naghmeh ForoutanDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, CRL Building, Room#282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. foroutn@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0114-8755
Jean-Eric TarrideDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, CRL Building, Room#282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, CRL Building, Room#282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Fergal MillsInnomar Consulting, Oakville, ON, Canada.
Mitchell LevineDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, CRL Building, Room#282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.

Funding

Mitacs IT09958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Canadian budget impact analysis (BIA) guidelines were published by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) in 2007. Some Canadian federal, provincial and territorial (F/P/T) drug plans have updated their BIA guidelines since then. The aim of the present review was to provide a comprehensive list of the key BIA recommendations from the various Canadian F/P/T drug plans and private payers and to highlight the differences between those guidelines and the recommendations that were in the Canadian PMPRB 2007 BIA guidelines. We searched the websites of fifteen F/P/T public drug benefit programs including the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and Non-Insured Health Benefits Program (NIHBP) and five private payers' websites. An Excel-based data abstraction form was designed to highlight differences between recommendations relating to the BIA key elements made by different guidelines. Eight BIA guidelines (PMPRB 2007, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, CADTH, and Medavie Blue Cross) were identified and reviewed, and a comprehensive list of recommendations was abstracted. Recommendations were similar to the 2007 guidelines in terms of time horizon duration, comparators, target population assessment and use of direct drug costs in BIAs. Differences were mostly related to actual acquisition cost, such as whether or not to include markups and dispensing fees, the patients' perspective, cost of supplies, cost of health care utilization, and scenario analysis. The recommendations that were not included in the PMPRB 2007 guidelines but were included in at least one of the Canadian F/P/T or private guidelines were related to the inclusion of the patients' perspective (i.e., co-payment), the costing, the handling of uncertainty and the reporting format. The present study is a comparative review of recommendations between the Canadian PMPRB 2007 guidelines and the F/P/T or private payers' BIA guidelines, and provides a most up-to-date list of recommendations for revising the Canadian BIA guidelines, with applicability for both public and private plan new drug submissions in Canada.

Identifiers

PMID31041614
PMCPMC6861390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.