Literature DB >> 16522575

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

Steven G Morgan1, Meghan McMahon, Craig Mitton, Elizabeth Roughead, Ray Kirk, Panos Kanavos, Devidas Menon.   

Abstract

Many 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.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16522575     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  35 in total

1.  Common Drug Review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations?

Authors:  Angela Rocchi; Elizabeth Miller; Robert B Hopkins; Ron Goeree
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  International variability in the reimbursement of cancer drugs by publically funded drug programs.

Authors:  P K Cheema; S Gavura; M Migus; B Godman; L Yeung; M E Trudeau
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 3.  Gap in publication of comparative information on new medicines.

Authors:  Johan C F van Luijn; Pieter Stolk; Frank W J Gribnau; Hubert G M Leufkens
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 4.  Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review.

Authors:  Mike Tierney; Braden Manns
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Deborah Marshall; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Cost shifting and timeliness of drug formulary decisions in atlantic Canada.

Authors:  Andrea C Scobie; Neil J Mackinnon
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2010-02

Review 7.  Systematic reviews and health policy: the influence of a project on perinatal care since 1988.

Authors:  Daniel M Fox
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 8.  Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different.

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Donald J Philippon; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options.

Authors:  Lowell E Schnipper; Nancy E Davidson; Dana S Wollins; Courtney Tyne; Douglas W Blayney; Diane Blum; Adam P Dicker; Patricia A Ganz; J Russell Hoverman; Robert Langdon; Gary H Lyman; Neal J Meropol; Therese Mulvey; Lee Newcomer; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Blase Polite; Derek Raghavan; Gregory Rossi; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag; Thomas J Smith; Peter P Yu; Clifford A Hudis; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-06-22       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Evaluating alignment between Canadian Common Drug Review reimbursement recommendations and provincial drug plan listing decisions: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Nicola Allen; Stuart R Walker; Lawrence Liberti; Chander Sehgal; M Sam Salek
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-11-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.