QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]
Author:
Keyword(s):
Year:  Vol:  Page: 

   

 

Health Affairs, 25, no. 2 (2006): 337-347
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337
© 2006 by Project HOPE
 
New Online
 * Pay Cuts For Medicare Docs
 * Access To Care Woes
 * Public Coverage More Efficient
 * Empowering Consumers
This Article
* Full Text (HTML)
* Reprint (PDF)
* Online Supplement
* Submit a response to this article
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me when eLetters are posted
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* E-mail this article to a friend
* Similar articles in this journal
* Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
* Similar articles in PubMed
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Personal Archive
* Download to Citation Manager
*Reprints & Permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via HighWire
* Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by Morgan, S. G.
* Articles by Menon, D.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* PubMed Citation
* Articles by Morgan, S. G.
* Articles by Menon, D.
Related Collections
* Business Of Health
* Evidence-Based Medicine
* Health Reform
* International Issues
* Legal/Regulatory Issues
* Managed Care - Regulatory Issues
* Pharmaceuticals
* Research And Technology
* Health Spending
* Politics

Drugs/Vaccines

Centralized Drug Review Processes In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, And The United Kingdom

Steven G. Morgan, Meghan McMahon, Craig Mitton, Elizabeth Roughead, Ray Kirk, Panos Kanavos and Devidas Menon

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.


Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CMAJHome page
M. Tierney BScPhm MSc, B. Manns MD MSc, and with the Members of the Canadian Expert Drug Advis
Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review
Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 12, 2008; 178(4): 432 - 435.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Health Aff (Millwood)Home page
G. R. Wilensky
Developing A Center For Comparative Effectiveness Information
Health Aff., November 1, 2006; 25(6): w572 - w585.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Health Aff (Millwood)Home page
J. M. Paterson, A. Laupacis, K. Bassett, G. M. Anderson, and for the BC-Ontario Pharmacosurveillance for Decisi
Using Pharmacoepidemiology To Inform Drug Coverage Policy: Initial Lessons From A Two-Province Collaborative
Health Aff., September 1, 2006; 25(5): 1436 - 1443.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Home | Current Issue | Archives | Topic Collections | Search | Blog | Subscribe | Contact Us | Help

© 2001-2006 Project HOPE–The People-to-People Organization
Terms and Policies