University of Hertfordshire

Standard

Evaluating alignment between Canadian Common Drug Review reimbursement recommendations and provincial drug plan listing decisions : an exploratory study. / Allen, Nicola; Walker, Stuart R; Liberti, Lawrence; Sehgal, Chander; Salek, M Sam.

In: CMAJ Open, Vol. 4, No. 4, 27.12.2016, p. E674-E678.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Allen, Nicola ; Walker, Stuart R ; Liberti, Lawrence ; Sehgal, Chander ; Salek, M Sam. / Evaluating alignment between Canadian Common Drug Review reimbursement recommendations and provincial drug plan listing decisions : an exploratory study. In: CMAJ Open. 2016 ; Vol. 4, No. 4. pp. E674-E678.

Bibtex

@article{93ee11574b9a46af9cf9b7bac997e30e,
title = "Evaluating alignment between Canadian Common Drug Review reimbursement recommendations and provincial drug plan listing decisions: an exploratory study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The CADTH Common Drug Review was established in 2002 to prepare national health technology assessment reports to guide listing decisions for 18 participating drug plans. The aim of this study was to compare the nonmandatory recommendations from the Common Drug Review in Canada with the listing decisions of provincial payers to determine alignment.METHODS: We identified the recommendations issued by the Common Drug Review from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015, and compared these with the listing decisions of 3 provincial public payers (Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario) that participate in the Common Drug Review and the recommendations from Quebec.RESULTS: We identified 174 medicine-indication pairs in CADTH Common Drug Review reports issued from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015; 110 of these met the inclusion criterion. Among the 110 medicine-indication pairs, listing decisions were available for 95 in Alberta, 102 in Quebec, 104 in Ontario and 106 in BC. There was moderate to substantial agreement between provincial listing decisions and Common Drug Review recommendations: 74.5{\%} (κ = 0.47, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.64) for Quebec, 78.8{\%} (κ = 0.56, 95{\%} CI 0.41-0.72) for Ontario, 78.9{\%} (κ = 0.58, 95{\%} CI 0.42-0.74) for Alberta and 81.1{\%} (κ = 0.62, 95{\%} CI 0.47-0.77) for BC.INTERPRETATION: Our study showed moderate to substantial agreement between Common Drug Review recommendations and provincial listing decisions. Future studies can build on this research by evaluating the concordance between Common Drug Review recommendations and listing decisions of all participating federal, provincial and territorial drug plans.",
author = "Nicola Allen and Walker, {Stuart R} and Lawrence Liberti and Chander Sehgal and Salek, {M Sam}",
note = "Copyright 2016, Joule Inc. or its licensors",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "27",
doi = "10.9778/cmajo.20160006",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "E674--E678",
journal = "CMAJ Open",
issn = "2291-0026",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating alignment between Canadian Common Drug Review reimbursement recommendations and provincial drug plan listing decisions

T2 - an exploratory study

AU - Allen, Nicola

AU - Walker, Stuart R

AU - Liberti, Lawrence

AU - Sehgal, Chander

AU - Salek, M Sam

N1 - Copyright 2016, Joule Inc. or its licensors

PY - 2016/12/27

Y1 - 2016/12/27

N2 - BACKGROUND: The CADTH Common Drug Review was established in 2002 to prepare national health technology assessment reports to guide listing decisions for 18 participating drug plans. The aim of this study was to compare the nonmandatory recommendations from the Common Drug Review in Canada with the listing decisions of provincial payers to determine alignment.METHODS: We identified the recommendations issued by the Common Drug Review from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015, and compared these with the listing decisions of 3 provincial public payers (Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario) that participate in the Common Drug Review and the recommendations from Quebec.RESULTS: We identified 174 medicine-indication pairs in CADTH Common Drug Review reports issued from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015; 110 of these met the inclusion criterion. Among the 110 medicine-indication pairs, listing decisions were available for 95 in Alberta, 102 in Quebec, 104 in Ontario and 106 in BC. There was moderate to substantial agreement between provincial listing decisions and Common Drug Review recommendations: 74.5% (κ = 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.64) for Quebec, 78.8% (κ = 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.72) for Ontario, 78.9% (κ = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.74) for Alberta and 81.1% (κ = 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.77) for BC.INTERPRETATION: Our study showed moderate to substantial agreement between Common Drug Review recommendations and provincial listing decisions. Future studies can build on this research by evaluating the concordance between Common Drug Review recommendations and listing decisions of all participating federal, provincial and territorial drug plans.

AB - BACKGROUND: The CADTH Common Drug Review was established in 2002 to prepare national health technology assessment reports to guide listing decisions for 18 participating drug plans. The aim of this study was to compare the nonmandatory recommendations from the Common Drug Review in Canada with the listing decisions of provincial payers to determine alignment.METHODS: We identified the recommendations issued by the Common Drug Review from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015, and compared these with the listing decisions of 3 provincial public payers (Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario) that participate in the Common Drug Review and the recommendations from Quebec.RESULTS: We identified 174 medicine-indication pairs in CADTH Common Drug Review reports issued from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015; 110 of these met the inclusion criterion. Among the 110 medicine-indication pairs, listing decisions were available for 95 in Alberta, 102 in Quebec, 104 in Ontario and 106 in BC. There was moderate to substantial agreement between provincial listing decisions and Common Drug Review recommendations: 74.5% (κ = 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.64) for Quebec, 78.8% (κ = 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.72) for Ontario, 78.9% (κ = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.74) for Alberta and 81.1% (κ = 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.77) for BC.INTERPRETATION: Our study showed moderate to substantial agreement between Common Drug Review recommendations and provincial listing decisions. Future studies can build on this research by evaluating the concordance between Common Drug Review recommendations and listing decisions of all participating federal, provincial and territorial drug plans.

U2 - 10.9778/cmajo.20160006

DO - 10.9778/cmajo.20160006

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - E674-E678

JO - CMAJ Open

JF - CMAJ Open

SN - 2291-0026

IS - 4

ER -