Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 389–402 | Cite as

An application of a proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries

The case of Côte d’Ivoire
Original Research Article



The General Mutual Benefit Fund for Civil Servants and State Employees of Côte d’Ivoire (MUGEFCI; Mutuelle Générale des Fonctionnaires et Agents de l’État de Côte d’Ivoire) is a health mutual fund providing coverage (medical consultations, laboratory tests and treatment) for its enrolees (government officials and agents). This organization aims to improve its current drug reimbursement process because of budgetary constraints. One method of achieving this is to implement a formulary-listing framework specifically developed for low-income countries.


The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of developing a new formulary for the MUGEFCI in Côte d’Ivoire, by implementing a formulary-listing framework specifically designed for under-researched settings.


The application of this formulary-listing framework (based on multi-criteria decision analysis [MCDA]) consisted of four steps. First, relevant formulary-listing criteria and their levels of variation were identified and weighted according to their importance in the decision making around drug reimbursement. Second, a set of priority treatments to be assessed was determined. Once the treatments eligible for reimbursement were determined, scores were assigned to these treatments according to their performance on the formulary-listing criteria levels. Finally, a composite league table (weighted matrix) was constructed to rank the set of treatments by priority order of reimbursement.

A budget-impact analysis (BIA) was also conducted to appraise the economic implications of the new composite drugs league table. The extent to which the new priority list of reimbursable drugs was affordable for the MUGEFCI was then measured.


Policy makers in Côte d’Ivoire considered severity of disease and cost effectiveness of treatment to be the most significant criteria for priority reimbursement of drugs. This translated into a general preference for antimalarials, treatments for asthma and antibacterials for urinary tract infection. Moreover, the results of the BIA suggest that the new priority list of reimbursable drugs would be affordable if the real economic impact of drugs per member is less than $US66. Over this threshold, the MUGEFCI would have to select reimbursable drugs according to their rank in the priority list and their respective budget impact per patient (cost per patient). This selection would start from the first treatment, going down the list until the $US66 per patient is exhausted.


It was possible to use MCDA to simultaneously consider different decision criteria for drug reimbursement in Côte d’Ivoire; therefore, it is feasible to use MCDA to establish a formulary for low-income countries. The application of this method is a step towards transparency in policy making.


Priority List Cost Category Buruli Ulcer Formulary Listing Reimbursable Drug 
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.



The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions from Dr Hildur Blythman.

No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Supplementary material

40258_2012_90603891_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (156 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 160 KB.


  1. 1.
    Santé en Côte d’Ivoire [online]. Available from URL:’Ivoire [Accessed 2011 May 2]
  2. 2.
    La couverture du risque maladie en Côte d’Ivoire [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Sep 21]
  3. 3.
    Diaby V, Dié Kakou H, Lachaine J. Eliciting preferences for reimbursed drugs selection criteria in Cote d’Ivoire. Patient 2011; 4(2): 125–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006; 4: 14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDaniel Jr C, Gates R. Marketing research essentials. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(8): 661–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diaby V, Lachaine J. A proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: incorporating key features from established drug benefit plans. Pharm Med 2011; 25(2): 71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James C, Carrin G, Savedoff W, et al. Clarifying efficiency-equity tradeoffs through explicit criteria, with a focus on developing countries. Health Care Anal 2005 Mar; 13(1): 33–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rapport sur la stratégie de coopération de l’OMS avec les pays (2004–2007): République de Côte d’Ivoire [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Mar 23]
  10. 10.
    Rapport de revue des pratiques de prescription de 2008 — Mutuelle générale des fonctionnaires et agents de l’État de Côte d’Ivoire. Abidjan: MUGEFCI, 2008. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    WHO. Life expectancy at birth [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jan 11]
  12. 12.
    Omonuwa S, Omonuva S. Malaria recurrence caused by Plasmodium falciparum. J Am Board Fam Pract 2002; 15(2): 159–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Observatoire pour les motifs de prescriptions à la MUGEFCI en 2008. Abidjan: MUGEFCI, 2008. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    WHO. Health statistics and health information systems: disability weights, discounting and age weighting of DALYs [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jan 11]
  15. 15.
    WHO. Global burden of disease 2004 update: disability weights for diseases and conditions [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jan 13]
  16. 16.
    Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Res Alloc 2006 Aug 21; 4: 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Organisation Mondiale de la Santé. Stratégie de cooperation [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jan 16]
  19. 19.
    Wilson EC, Rees J, Fordham RJ. Developing a prioritization framework in an English Primary Care Trust. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006 Feb 17; 4: 3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baltussen R, ten Asbroek G, Koolman X, et al. A rational approach to priority setting: should a lung health program be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan 2007; 22(3): 178–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Value Health 2008 Dec; 11(7): 1081–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    González-Pier E, Gutiérez-Delgado C, Stevens G, et al. Priority setting for health interventions in Mexico’s system of social protection in health. Lancet 2006 Nov; 368(9547): 1608–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Evaluation Methods and Pharmacoeconomics, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations