IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v31y2013i3p229-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evaluation and Use of Economic Evidence to Inform Cancer Drug Reimbursement Decisions in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Yong
  • Jaclyn Beca
  • Jeffrey Hoch

Abstract

Canada has a separate review process for making cancer drug funding recommendations, and this process uses both clinical and economic evidence. The committee could not determine the value for money of the drugs from several of the submitted pharmacoeconomic analyses. Transparent analyses and detailed critique of evidence are crucial to the use of economic evidence in reimbursement decisions. Rigorous evaluation is resource intensive and may benefit from a shared drug review process among several jurisdictions. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Yong & Jaclyn Beca & Jeffrey Hoch, 2013. "The Evaluation and Use of Economic Evidence to Inform Cancer Drug Reimbursement Decisions in Canada," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 229-236, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:31:y:2013:i:3:p:229-236
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-012-0022-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40273-012-0022-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-012-0022-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitton, Craig R. & McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Gibson, Jennifer, 2006. "Centralized drug review processes: Are they fair?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 200-211, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steven Simoens, 2013. "Assessment of Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations in Belgian Drug Reimbursement Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    2. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    3. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Tracy Merlin, 2013. "Improving the Accuracy and Comparability of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies for Reimbursement Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 325-332, April.
    2. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & John S. F. Wright & Anthony J. G. Barron & Sara M. B. Shah & Corinna Klingler, 2017. "Convergence, Divergence and Hybridity: A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment in England and Germany," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s2), pages 69-75, March.
    3. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    4. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2008. "Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--A review of empirical studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-9, April.
    5. Morgan, Steven G. & Thomson, Paige A. & Daw, Jamie R. & Friesen, Melissa K., 2013. "Canadian policy makers’ views on pharmaceutical reimbursement contracts involving confidential discounts from drug manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 248-254.
    6. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    7. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    8. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.
    9. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Bayoumi, Ahmed M., 2014. "Transparency in Canadian public drug advisory committees," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 255-263.
    10. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    11. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Daar, Abdallah S. & Singer, Peter A. & Martin, Douglas K., 2008. "Healthcare sustainability and the challenges of innovation to biopharmaceuticals in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 359-368, September.
    12. Katharina E. Fischer & Tom Stargardt, 2014. "Early Benefit Assessment of Pharmaceuticals in Germany," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 1030-1047, November.
    13. Katharina E. Fischer & Björn Stollenwerk & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2013. "Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 1009-1025, November.
    14. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    15. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Chris Skedgel & Dominika Wranik & Min Hu, 2018. "The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian On," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 467-475, April.
    17. Carlos King Ho Wong & Olivia Wu & Bernard M. Y. Cheung, 2018. "Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14, February.
    18. Rajan Ragupathy & Katri Aaltonen & June Tordoff & Pauline Norris & David Reith, 2012. "A 3-Dimensional View of Access to Licensed and Subsidized Medicines under Single-Payer Systems in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(11), pages 1051-1065, November.
    19. Wannian Liang & Jipan Xie & Hongpeng Fu & Eric Wu, 2014. "The Role of Health Economics and Outcomes Research in Health Care Reform in China," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 231-234, March.
    20. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:31:y:2013:i:3:p:229-236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.