Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 4/2003

01-03-2003 | Original Research Article

Ontario’s Formulary Committee

How Recommendations Are Made

Authors: Anne M. PausJenssen, Peter A. Singer, Dr Allan S. Detsky

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 4/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: In 1996, the provincial government in Ontario, Canada required pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to list their products on the provincial formulary to provide a formal economic analysis documenting the products’ cost effectiveness. The provincial formulary lists pharmaceutical products for which reimbursement is provided for residents on the Ontario Drug Benefit Program(ODB).
Objective: To describe how listing decisions are made, and specifically the role of economic analysis in this process.
Design: A qualitative case study approach was taken. Data were analysed using the pattern-matching technique. Data consisted of meeting transcripts and interviews with committee members, which were coded and weighted for analysis using the pattern-matching technique.
Setting: Nine meetings of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee (DQTC), which makes listing recommendations to the ODB, were observed.
Participants: Seven individual committee members were interviewed.
Results: Complex economic analyses (i.e. analyses more involved than a simple cost-consequence analysis) played a limited role. The clinical factor dominated the perception of costs. Generic and ‘me-too’ products with no price premium did not require complex economic analyses. Poor quality analyses were not useful and the DQTC members’ lack of in-depth knowledge of health economics influenced the extent to which analyses were discussed. The DQTC did discuss economic issues however, and often performed informal economic analyses to guide decisions.
Conclusions: Complex economic analyses had an impact on provincial drug benefit decisions in a limited number of circumstances, principally for expensive innovative products. However, the committee did use some form of economic analysis to guide decisions in almost all cases, and therefore requesting economic analyses, even simple ones, from manufacturers seeking formulary listing is a useful healthcare policy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Do physicians take cost into account when making prescribing decisions? Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (4): 282–90PubMedCrossRef Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Do physicians take cost into account when making prescribing decisions? Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (4): 282–90PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Detsky AS. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3 (5): 354–61PubMedCrossRef Detsky AS. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3 (5): 354–61PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Naylor CD, Williams JI, Basinski A, et al. Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis: misguided guidelines? CMAJ 1993; 148: 921–4PubMed Naylor CD, Williams JI, Basinski A, et al. Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis: misguided guidelines? CMAJ 1993; 148: 921–4PubMed
4.
go back to reference Yin RK. Case study research design and methods. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher, 1994 Yin RK. Case study research design and methods. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher, 1994
5.
go back to reference Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1994 Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1994
6.
go back to reference Miles MB, Huberman AM. An expanded sourcebook, qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher, 1994 Miles MB, Huberman AM. An expanded sourcebook, qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher, 1994
7.
go back to reference Sloan FA, Whetten-Goldstein K, Wilson A. Hospital pharmacy decision, cost containment and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 523–33PubMedCrossRef Sloan FA, Whetten-Goldstein K, Wilson A. Hospital pharmacy decision, cost containment and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 523–33PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hill SR, Mitchell A, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283: 2116–21CrossRef Hill SR, Mitchell A, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283: 2116–21CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Mitchell A. Update and evaluation of Australian guidelines, government perspective. Med Care 1996; 34: DS216–25PubMed Mitchell A. Update and evaluation of Australian guidelines, government perspective. Med Care 1996; 34: DS216–25PubMed
10.
go back to reference Lyles A, Luce BR, Rentz AM. Managed care pharmacy, socioeconomic assessments and drug adoption decisions. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 511–21PubMedCrossRef Lyles A, Luce BR, Rentz AM. Managed care pharmacy, socioeconomic assessments and drug adoption decisions. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 511–21PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, et al. The role of cost-consequence analysis in health-care decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (3): 277–88CrossRef Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, et al. The role of cost-consequence analysis in health-care decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (3): 277–88CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Udvarhelyi IS, Cloditz GA, Rai A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature: are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 238–44PubMed Udvarhelyi IS, Cloditz GA, Rai A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature: are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 238–44PubMed
13.
go back to reference Bradley CA, Iskedjian M, Lanctot KL, et al. Quality assessment of economic evaluations in selected pharmacy, medical and health economic journals. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29: 681–9PubMed Bradley CA, Iskedjian M, Lanctot KL, et al. Quality assessment of economic evaluations in selected pharmacy, medical and health economic journals. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29: 681–9PubMed
14.
go back to reference Evans RG. Manufacturing consensus, marketing truth: guidelines for economic evaluation. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 59–60PubMed Evans RG. Manufacturing consensus, marketing truth: guidelines for economic evaluation. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 59–60PubMed
15.
go back to reference Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283: 2158–60CrossRef Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283: 2158–60CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997
17.
go back to reference Singer PA. Resource allocation: beyond evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. ACP J Club 1997; 127: A16–8PubMed Singer PA. Resource allocation: beyond evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. ACP J Club 1997; 127: A16–8PubMed
18.
go back to reference Ham C. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy 1997; 42: 49–66PubMedCrossRef Ham C. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy 1997; 42: 49–66PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in healthcare. BMJ 1998; 317: 1000–2CrossRef Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in healthcare. BMJ 1998; 317: 1000–2CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Klein R. Puzzling out priorities: why we must acknowledge that rationing is a political process. BMJ 1998; 317: 959–60PubMedCrossRef Klein R. Puzzling out priorities: why we must acknowledge that rationing is a political process. BMJ 1998; 317: 959–60PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hailey D. Australian economic evaluation and government decisions on pharmaceuticals compared to assessment of other health technologies. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 563–81PubMedCrossRef Hailey D. Australian economic evaluation and government decisions on pharmaceuticals compared to assessment of other health technologies. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 563–81PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Ontario’s Formulary Committee
How Recommendations Are Made
Authors
Anne M. PausJenssen
Peter A. Singer
Dr Allan S. Detsky
Publication date
01-03-2003
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 4/2003
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321040-00006

Other articles of this Issue 4/2003

PharmacoEconomics 4/2003 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Unit Costs of Inpatient Hospital Days