IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i4d10.1007_s41669-019-0139-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Naghmeh Foroutan

    (McMaster University
    The Research Institute of St. Joe’s, St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton)

  • Jean-Eric Tarride

    (McMaster University
    The Research Institute of St. Joe’s, St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
    McMaster University)

  • Feng Xie

    (McMaster University
    McMaster University
    Program for Health Economics and Outcome Measures (PHENOM))

  • Fergal Mills

    (Innomar Consulting)

  • Mitchell Levine

    (McMaster University
    The Research Institute of St. Joe’s, St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
    McMaster University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Naghmeh Foroutan & Jean-Eric Tarride & Feng Xie & Fergal Mills & Mitchell Levine, 2019. "A Comparison of Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) Recommendations Amongst the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), Public and Private Payers," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 437-451, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0139-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0139-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0139-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-019-0139-y?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salah Ghabri & Erwan Autin & Anne-Isabelle Poullié & Jean Michel Josselin, 2018. "The French National Authority for Health (HAS) Guidelines for Conducting Budget Impact Analyses (BIA)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 407-417, April.
    2. Salah Ghabri & Erwan Autin & Anne-Isabelle Poullié & Jean Michel Josselin, 2018. "The French National Authority for Health (HAS) Guidelines for Conducting Budget Impact Analyses (BIA)," Post-Print halshs-01683827, HAL.
    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. Jessica Keim-Malpass & Scott K. Heysell & Tania A. Thomas & Jennifer M. Lobo & Stellah G. Mpagama & Conrad Muzoora & Christopher C. Moore, 2023. "Decision Analytic Modeling for Global Clinical Trial Planning: A Case for HIV-Positive Patients at High Risk for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Sepsis in Uganda," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-8, March.
    2. Eman Mohammad Massad & Amir Bakir, 2021. "A Framework for Developing a Model Structure of Budget Impact Analysis for New Health Care Interventions in Jordan," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 11(1), pages 126-134.

    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.

      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:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0139-y. 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.