Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 477–495 | Cite as

Guidelines for Conducting Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analyses for Submission to Public Drug Plans in Canada

  • Deborah A. MarshallEmail author
  • Patrick R. Douglas
  • Michael F. Drummond
  • George W. Torrance
  • Stuart MacLeod
  • Orlando Manti
  • Lokanadha Cheruvu
  • Ron Corvari
Review Article

Abstract

Until now, there has been no standardized method of performing and presenting budget impact analyses (BIAs) in Canada. Nevertheless, most drug plan managers have been requiring this economic data to inform drug reimbursement decisions. This paper describes the process used to develop the Canadian BIA Guidelines; describes the Guidelines themselves, including the model template; and compares this guidance with other guidance on BIAs. The intended audience includes those who develop, submit or use BIA models, and drug plan managers who evaluate BIA submissions.

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) initiated the development of the Canadian BIA Guidelines on behalf of the National Prescription Drug Utilisation Information System (NPDUIS). The findings and recommendations from a needs assessment with respect to BIA submissions were reviewed to inform guideline development. In addition, a literature review was performed to identify existing BIA guidance. The detailed guidance was developed on this basis, and with the input of the NPDUIS Advisory Committee, including drug plan managers from multiple provinces in Canada and a representative from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. A Microsoft® Excel-based interactive model template was designed to support BIA model development. Input regarding the guidelines and model template was sought from each NPDUIS Advisory Committee member to ensure compatibility with existing drug plan needs. Decisions were made by consensus through multiple rounds of review and discussion. Finally, BIA guidance in Canadian provinces and other countries were compared on the basis of multiple criteria.

The BIA guidelines consist of three major sections: Analytic Framework, Inputs and Data Sources, and Reporting Format. The Analytic Framework section contains a discussion of nine general issues surrounding BIAs (model design, analytic perspective, time horizon, target population, costing, scenarios to be compared, the characterisation of uncertainty, discounting, and validation methods). The Inputs and Data Sources section addresses methods for market size estimation, comparator selection, scenario forecasting and drug price estimation. The Reporting Format section describes methods for BIA reporting.

The new Canadian BIA Guidelines represent a significant departure from the limited guidance that was previously available from some of the provinces, because they include specific details of the methods of performing BIAs. The Canadian BIA Guidelines differ from the Principles of Good Research Practice for BIAs developed by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), which provide more general guidance.

The Canadian BIA Guidelines and template build upon existing guidance to address the specific requirements of each of the participating drug plans in Canada. Both have been endorsed by the NPDUIS Steering Committee and the PMPRB for the standardization of BIA submissions.

Keywords

Reference Scenario Drug Plan Budget Impact Analysis Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee Common Drug Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drug plans in Canada and the supporting Microsoft® Excel-based BIA model template were developed by i3 Innovus under contract after a competitive bidding process, with the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB) for the National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System (NPDUIS). i3 Innovus is a contract research organization that specializes in health economics and outcomes research.

This report was produced with the assistance of the NPDUIS Steering Committee, the membership of which is detailed in the PMPRB BIA Guidelines Report. The NPDUIS Advisory Committee worked with i3 Innovus and the PMPRB to review and comment on the guidelines and template, and these comments were incorporated into the final versions of both products.

i3 Innovus recognizes the contribution of its staff in the development of these guidelines, with special mention going to Amy Lee, PhD, for her contribution to the development of the interactive BIA template. i3 Innovus would also like to acknowledge Bindu Islam, formerly of the PMPRB, for her contribution to this project. i3 Innovus also acknowledges the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force Good Research Practices — Budget Impact Analysis and its Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis Report, which was used to inform the development of this Canadian guidance document. In addition, i3 Innovus would like to express its thanks to Alberta Health and Wellness, Manitoba Health and the Ontario Drug Benefit Program for their BIA templates to inform the development of these guidelines.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH, 2006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Common drag review submission guidelines for manufacturers. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 2005 Jul 25Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alberta Health and Wellness. Budget impact assessment for the Alberta Health and Wellness drag benefit list, version 6. July 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ab.bluecross.ca/dbl/pdfs/bia2006.pdf [Accessed 2006 Oct 13]Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manitoba Health. Budget impact assessment for the Manitoba Health Manitoba drag benefits and interchangeability formulary. 2003 Jul 30 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/documents/bia.doc [Accessed 2006 Oct 13]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario Drag Benefits Program: Ontario guidelines for drag submission and evaluation [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/pub/drags/dsguide/dsguide_mn.html [Accessed 2006 Oct 13]
  6. 6.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Budget impact analysis guidelines: needs assessment. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/PEguide-lines/index.asp [Accessed 2007 Jun 17]
  9. 9.
    Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Budget impact analysis guidelines: guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drag plans in Canada. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles/BIA-may0738LVV-5282007-5906.pdf [Accessed 2007 Nov 27]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drag plans in Canada: budget impact analysis model template. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles/PMPRB_-_Final_BIA_Template_138 LWA-5282007-6476.0_-_sent_apr_13_200738LWA-5282007-6476.xls [Accessed 2007 Nov 27]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenberg JD, Bingham III CO, Abramson SB, et al. Assessment of coxib utilization by rheumatologists for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drag gastroprotection prior to the coxib market withdrawals. Arthritis Rheum 2006 Aug 15; 55 (4): 543–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003; 6 (1): 9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dickson M, Hurst J, Jacobzone S. Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in eleven countries [OECD Health Working Papers 4]. Paris: OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, 2003 May 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health and Ageing (DoHaA), editor. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Commonwealth of Australia DoHaA. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, DoHaA, 2002Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?.o=356870 [Accessed 2007 Jun 17]
  16. 16.
    Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Budget Impact Analysis. Value Health 2007; 10: 336–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health 2004; 7 (1): 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah A. Marshall
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Patrick R. Douglas
    • 1
  • Michael F. Drummond
    • 1
    • 4
  • George W. Torrance
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stuart MacLeod
    • 1
    • 5
  • Orlando Manti
    • 6
  • Lokanadha Cheruvu
    • 6
  • Ron Corvari
    • 6
  1. 1.Global Health Economics and Outcomes Researchi3 InnovusBurlingtonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Evaluation of MedicinesSt. Joseph’s HospitalHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.University of YorkYorkUK
  5. 5.Child & Family Research InstituteVancouverCanada
  6. 6.Patented Medicine Prices Review BoardOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations