Literature DB >> 18489199

Guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drug plans in Canada.

Deborah A Marshall1, Patrick R Douglas, Michael F Drummond, George W Torrance, Stuart Macleod, Orlando Manti, Lokanadha Cheruvu, Ron Corvari.   

Abstract

Until now, there has been no standardized method of performing and presenting budget impact analyses (BIAs) in Canada. Nevertheless, most drug plan managers have been requiring this economic data to inform drug reimbursement decisions. This paper describes the process used to develop the Canadian BIA Guidelines; describes the Guidelines themselves, including the model template; and compares this guidance with other guidance on BIAs. The intended audience includes those who develop, submit or use BIA models, and drug plan managers who evaluate BIA submissions. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) initiated the development of the Canadian BIA Guidelines on behalf of the National Prescription Drug Utilisation Information System (NPDUIS). The findings and recommendations from a needs assessment with respect to BIA submissions were reviewed to inform guideline development. In addition, a literature review was performed to identify existing BIA guidance. The detailed guidance was developed on this basis, and with the input of the NPDUIS Advisory Committee, including drug plan managers from multiple provinces in Canada and a representative from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. A Microsoft Excel-based interactive model template was designed to support BIA model development. Input regarding the guidelines and model template was sought from each NPDUIS Advisory Committee member to ensure compatibility with existing drug plan needs. Decisions were made by consensus through multiple rounds of review and discussion. Finally, BIA guidance in Canadian provinces and other countries were compared on the basis of multiple criteria. The BIA guidelines consist of three major sections: Analytic Framework, Inputs and Data Sources, and Reporting Format. The Analytic Framework section contains a discussion of nine general issues surrounding BIAs (model design, analytic perspective, time horizon, target population, costing, scenarios to be compared, the characterisation of uncertainty, discounting, and validation methods). The Inputs and Data Sources section addresses methods for market size estimation, comparator selection, scenario forecasting and drug price estimation. The Reporting Format section describes methods for BIA reporting. The new Canadian BIA Guidelines represent a significant departure from the limited guidance that was previously available from some of the provinces, because they include specific details of the methods of performing BIAs. The Canadian BIA Guidelines differ from the Principles of Good Research Practice for BIAs developed by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), which provide more general guidance. The Canadian BIA Guidelines and template build upon existing guidance to address the specific requirements of each of the participating drug plans in Canada. Both have been endorsed by the NPDUIS Steering Committee and the PMPRB for the standardization of BIA submissions.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18489199     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826060-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  5 in total

1.  Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries.

Authors:  Ewa Orlewska; Piotr Mierzejewski
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies.

Authors:  Milton C Weinstein; Bernie O'Brien; John Hornberger; Joseph Jackson; Magnus Johannesson; Chris McCabe; Bryan R Luce
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis.

Authors:  Josephine A Mauskopf; Sean D Sullivan; Lieven Annemans; Jaime Caro; C Daniel Mullins; Mark Nuijten; Ewa Orlewska; John Watkins; Paul Trueman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Assessment of coxib utilization by rheumatologists for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug gastroprotection prior to the coxib market withdrawals.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Greenberg; Clifton O Bingham; Steven B Abramson; George Reed; Mitsumasa Kishimoto; Kim Hinkle; Joel Kremer
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-08-15

5.  Report from the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.188

  5 in total
  29 in total

1.  Assessing the Value of New Treatments for Hepatitis C: Are International Decision Makers Getting this Right?

Authors:  Beth Woods; Rita Faria; Susan Griffin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Economic Value of Improved Accuracy for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Devices for Type 1 Diabetes in Canada.

Authors:  R Brett McQueen; Marc D Breton; Markus Ott; Helena Koa; Bruce Beamer; Jonathan D Campbell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-14

3.  The use of pharmacoeconomic evidence to support formulary decision making in Saudi Arabia: Methodological recommendations.

Authors:  Sinaa A Al Aqeel; Mohammed Al-Sultan
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  A decision-theoretic framework for the application of cost-effectiveness analysis in regulatory processes.

Authors:  Gianluca Baio; Pierluigi Russo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies.

Authors:  Ewa Orlewska; Laszlo Gulácsi
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Ireland: a review of the process.

Authors:  Lesley Tilson; Aisling O'Leary; Cara Usher; Michael Barry
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Budget impact analysis in economic evaluation: a proposal for a clearer definition.

Authors:  Livio Garattini; Katelijne van de Vooren
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-12

8.  Budget impact analysis of osteoporosis medications for primary prevention of fractures in Taiwan.

Authors:  Kun-Ling Wu; Chih-Hsing Wu; Yin-Fan Chang; Yun-Ting Lin; Jason C Hsu
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  Clopidogrel versus Other Antiplatelet Agents for Secondary Prevention of Vascular Events in Adults with Acute Coronary Syndrome or Peripheral Vascular Disease: Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

Authors:  S Banerjee; A Brown; L McGahan; K Asakawa; B Hutton; M Clark; M Severn; M Sharma; Jl Cox
Journal:  CADTH Technol Overv       Date:  2012-03-01

10.  Health and economic impact of rotavirus vaccination in GAVI-eligible countries.

Authors:  Sun-Young Kim; Steve Sweet; David Slichter; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.