Health Affairs

Health Affairs, 25, no. 2 (2006): 337-347 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337 © 2006 by Project HOPE	New Online   Getting Health Reform Done   After the State of the Union   Incremental Reform   E-Health in Developing World   Most-Read Articles in 2009

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 Comments 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 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 Web of Science (7) 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 Health Reform International Issues Legal/Regulatory Issues Managed Care - Regulatory Issues Business Of Health Pharmaceuticals Research And Technology Health Spending Politics Evidence-Based Medicine

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.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Nelson and L. Wolf-Powers Chains and Ladders: Exploring the Opportunities for Workforce Development and Poverty Reduction in the Hospital Sector Economic Development Quarterly, February 1, 2010; 24(1): 33 - 44. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. M. Clement, A. Harris, J. J. Li, K. Yong, K. M. Lee, and B. J. Manns Using Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness to Make Drug Coverage Decisions: A Comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada JAMA, October 7, 2009; 302(13): 1437 - 1443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

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

				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]