Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom

被引:72
|
作者
Morgan, SG [1 ]
McMahon, M
Mitton, C
Roughead, E
Kirk, R
Kanavos, P
Menon, D
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Ctr Hlth Serv & Policy Res, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[2] Univ British Columbia, Program Pharmaceut Policy, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ British Columbia, Fac Hlth & Social Dev, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[5] Sansom Inst, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[6] Univ Canterbury, Hlth Sci Ctr, Christchurch 1, New Zealand
[7] Univ London London Sch Econ & Polit Sci, London WC2A 2AE, England
[8] Univ Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2M7, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Many countries have centralized the clinical and economic assessments necessary for evidence-based drug coverage policy. We analyze such processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. These countries apply comparable approaches to the assessment and appraisal of evidence but apply the processes to different types of drugs and use the reviews within different decision-making contexts. Review processes applied to all medicines and clearly tied to coverage decisions appear to influence national drug use. Rigor of process and transparency of data and rationale are believed to be important for maximizing the impact and political acceptability of the processes.
引用
收藏
页码:337 / 347
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Benchmarking Parliamentary Administration: The United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia(#)
    Verrier, June
    [J]. AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW, 2007, 22 (01): : 45 - 79
  • [2] Drug review in Canada: A comparison with Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States
    Rawson, NSB
    Kaitin, KI
    Thomas, KE
    Perry, G
    [J]. DRUG INFORMATION JOURNAL, 1998, 32 (04): : 1133 - 1141
  • [3] Drug Review in Canada: A Comparison With Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States
    Nigel S. B. Rawson
    Kenneth I. Kaitin
    Kate E. Thomas
    Grant Perry
    [J]. Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association, 1998, 32 (4): : 1133 - 1141
  • [4] Leadership in animal welfare: A comparison of Canada with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand
    Hewson, CJ
    [J]. CANADIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL-REVUE VETERINAIRE CANADIENNE, 2004, 45 (11): : 944 - 950
  • [5] Tax simplification: A review of initiatives in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom
    James, Simon
    Sawyer, Adrian
    Wallschutzky, Ian
    [J]. EJOURNAL OF TAX RESEARCH, 2015, 13 (01): : 280 - 302
  • [6] Review of registration requirements for new part-time doctors in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada
    Leitch, Sharon
    Dovey, Susan M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE, 2010, 2 (04) : 272 - 280
  • [8] A scoping review of how new midwifery practitioners transition to practice in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom and The Netherlands
    Gray, Michelle
    Malott, Anne
    Davis, Beth Murray
    Sandor, Christine
    [J]. MIDWIFERY, 2016, 42 : 74 - 79
  • [9] Rural chronic disease research patterns in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: a systematic integrative review
    R. Disler
    K. Glenister
    J. Wright
    [J]. BMC Public Health, 20
  • [10] Rural chronic disease research patterns in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: a systematic integrative review
    Disler, R.
    Glenister, K.
    Wright, J.
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 20 (01)