Centralising drug review to improve coverage decisions: economic lessons from (and for) Canada

Variation in the prescription drugs covered by health systems across high-income countries: A review of and recommendations for the academic literature

BACKGROUND

Because not all medicines are equally safe, effective, and affordable, health systems often use formularies to define explicitly which medicines will be included and excluded from coverage.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to synthesize methods and findings from published studies of formulary variation across health systems in high-income countries.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed research papers published from 2000 to 2017, inclusively. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the literature, we used an inductive approach to summarize methods and findings.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our study inclusion criteria. Included studies used a variety of methods for selecting medicines for analysis, for measuring coverage levels, and for measuring concordance between formularies. Studies assessing variations in coverage of all licensed medicines and found lower rates of cross-national coverage variation than studies of coverage for selected specialty drugs and indications. The one study that focused on coverage of high-volume medicines found the most complete and consistent levels of formulary listings across countries.

CONCLUSION

Although published studies contain interesting findings that likely have prompted discussions about their policy implications, the literature can be improved with greater transparency concerning the overarching objective of work in this area and more rigor concerning the selection, analysis, and reporting of data.

Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications

Background

Healthcare decisionmaking is a complex process relying on disparate types of evidence and value judgments. Our objectives for this study were to develop a practical framework to facilitate decisionmaking in terms of supporting the deliberative process, providing access to evidence, and enhancing the communication of decisions.

Methods

Extensive analyses of the literature and of documented decisionmaking processes around the globe were performed to explore what steps are currently used to make decisions with respect to context (from evidence generation to communication of decision) and thought process (conceptual components of decisions). Needs and methodologies available to support decisionmaking were identified to lay the groundwork for the EVIDEM framework.

Results

A framework was developed consisting of seven modules that can evolve over the life cycle of a healthcare intervention. Components of decision that could be quantified, i.e., intrinsic value of a healthcare intervention and quality of evidence available, were organized into matrices. A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) Value Matrix (VM) was developed to include the 15 quantifiable components that are currently considered in decisionmaking. A methodology to synthesize the evidence needed for each component of the VM was developed including electronic access to full text source documents. A Quality Matrix was designed to quantify three criteria of quality for the 12 types of evidence usually required by decisionmakers. An integrated system was developed to optimize data analysis, synthesis and validation by experts, compatible with a collaborative structure.

Conclusion

The EVIDEM framework promotes transparent and efficient healthcare decisionmaking through systematic assessment and dissemination of the evidence and values on which decisions are based. It provides a collaborative framework that could connect all stakeholders and serve the healthcare community at local, national and international levels by allowing sharing of data, resources and values. Validation and further development is needed to explore the full potential of this approach.

Implementing accountability for reasonableness--the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden

This paper aims to describe the priority-setting procedure for new original pharmaceuticals practiced by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN), to analyse the outcome of the procedure in terms of decisions and the relative importance of ethical principles, and to examine the reactions of stakeholders. All the 'principally important' decisions made by the LFN during its first 33 months of operation were analysed. The study is theoretically anchored in the theory of fair and legitimate priority-setting procedures by Daniels and Sabin, and is based on public documents, media articles, and semi-structured interviews. Only nine cases resulted in a rejection of a subsidy by the LFN and 15 in a limited or conditional subsidy. Total rejections rather than limitations gave rise to actions by stakeholders. Primarily, the principle of cost-effectiveness was used when limiting/conditioning or totally rejecting a subsidy. This study suggests that implementing a priority-setting process that fulfils the conditions of accountability for reasonableness can result in a priority-setting process which is generally perceived as fair and legitimate by the major stakeholders and may increase social learning in terms of accepting the necessity of priority setting in health care. The principle of cost-effectiveness increased in importance when the demand for openness and transparency increased.