Skip to main content
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 6/2008

01.06.2008 | Review Article

Guidelines for Conducting Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analyses for Submission to Public Drug Plans in Canada

verfasst von: Dr Deborah A. Marshall, Patrick R. Douglas, Michael F. Drummond, George W. Torrance, Stuart MacLeod, Orlando Manti, Lokanadha Cheruvu, Ron Corvari

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 6/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH, 2006 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH, 2006
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Common drag review submission guidelines for manufacturers. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 2005 Jul 25 Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Common drag review submission guidelines for manufacturers. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 2005 Jul 25
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994 Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Budget impact analysis guidelines: needs assessment. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, 2005 Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Budget impact analysis guidelines: needs assessment. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, 2005
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Greenberg JD, Bingham III CO, Abramson SB, et al. Assessment of coxib utilization by rheumatologists for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drag gastroprotection prior to the coxib market withdrawals. Arthritis Rheum 2006 Aug 15; 55 (4): 543–550PubMedCrossRef Greenberg JD, Bingham III CO, Abramson SB, et al. Assessment of coxib utilization by rheumatologists for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drag gastroprotection prior to the coxib market withdrawals. Arthritis Rheum 2006 Aug 15; 55 (4): 543–550PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003; 6 (1): 9–17PubMedCrossRef Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003; 6 (1): 9–17PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Dickson M, Hurst J, Jacobzone S. Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in eleven countries [OECD Health Working Papers 4]. Paris: OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, 2003 May 16CrossRef Dickson M, Hurst J, Jacobzone S. Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in eleven countries [OECD Health Working Papers 4]. Paris: OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, 2003 May 16CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health and Ageing (DoHaA), editor. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Commonwealth of Australia DoHaA. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, DoHaA, 2002 Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health and Ageing (DoHaA), editor. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Commonwealth of Australia DoHaA. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, DoHaA, 2002
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Budget Impact Analysis. Value Health 2007; 10: 336–347PubMedCrossRef Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Budget Impact Analysis. Value Health 2007; 10: 336–347PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health 2004; 7 (1): 1–10PubMedCrossRef Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health 2004; 7 (1): 1–10PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Guidelines for Conducting Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analyses for Submission to Public Drug Plans in Canada
verfasst von
Dr Deborah A. Marshall
Patrick R. Douglas
Michael F. Drummond
George W. Torrance
Stuart MacLeod
Orlando Manti
Lokanadha Cheruvu
Ron Corvari
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2008
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 6/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826060-00003

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2008

PharmacoEconomics 6/2008 Zur Ausgabe

Review Article

Cost of Epilepsy