Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Public Opinion in Drug Resource Allocation Decisions

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Drug resource allocation decisions have a very real and direct impact on the public, due to cost and availability constraints resulting from these decisions. This presents an opportunity for public opinion to play an important role in influencing decisions that have far-reaching effects. Public opinion regarding pharmaceutical issues is influenced by drug companies, special interest groups, researchers and others. Since these groups often have conflicting goals, they may send contradictory messages to the public.

In this article, we examine the issues of who comprises the public, how public opinion is influenced and what impact public opinion does and should have on drug resource allocation decisions. We emphasise that, for appropriate resource allocation decisions to be made, there is a continuing need to conduct high quality outcomes research and to continue the trend of increasing interest in how drugs are used rather than how much is sold or how much they cost. There is also a major role for pharmacoeconomic research to play in this issue, with a real need to make such research accessible and understandable by the public, including patients, physicians, pharmacists and policy makers, so that policy decisions can be based on such research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ostrowski H. Drug makers prescribe cure for ailing reputation. Public Relat J 1993; 49(10): 18–21

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ostrowski H. Pharmaceutical giants tell their story (drug makers respond to criticisms). Public Relat J 1993; 49(10): 20

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ostrowski H. Pharmaceutical makers step up educational efforts to win support. Public Relat J 1994; 50(3): 27

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deber RB. Physicians in health care management: 8. The patient-physician partnership: decision making, problem solving and the desire to participate. Can Med Assoc J 1994; 151(4): 423–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, Mulley AG, et al. Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Care 1995; 33(8): 771–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nease RF, Kneeland T, O’Connor GT, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina: implications for clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 1995; 273(15): 1185–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersson F. The international diffusion of new drugs: a comparative study of seven industrialized countries. J Res Pharm Econ 1992; 4(2): 43–62

    Google Scholar 

  8. Orzack LH, Kaitin KI, Lasagna L. Pharmaceutical regulation in the European community: barriers to single market integration. J Health Polit Policy Law 1992; 17(4): 847–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lammi G, Wolfe S. Should Congress curb the FDA’s power over drugs, vitamins, and medical devices? Health 1995; 9(3): 34

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jang R. Medicaid formularies: a critical review of the literature. J Pharm Mark Manage 1988; 2(3): 39–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Henke K, Murray MA, Ade C. Global budgeting in Germany: lessons for the United States. Health Aff 1994 Fall: 7–21

  12. Blendon RJ, Donelan K. British public opinion on national health service reform. Health Aff 1989 Winter: 52–62

  13. Santell JP. Projecting future drug expenditures — 1993. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993; 50: 71–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaffer DJ. Seniors’ group protests Lilly drug-pricing policy. Indianapolis Star 1995 Mar 18; Sect. E: 1

  15. Reich M. Essential drugs: economics and politics in international health. Health Policy 1987; 8: 39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ross-Degnan D, Laing R, Quick J, et al. A strategy for promoting improved pharmaceutical use: the international network for rational use of drugs. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35(11): 1329–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Langley P. The role of pharmacoeconomic guidelines for formulary approval: the Australian experience. Clin Ther 1993; 15(6): 1154–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rutten F, van der Linden J-W. Integration of economic appraisal and health care policy in a health insurance system: the Dutch case. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38(12): 1609–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ray WA, Griffin MR, Avorn J. Evaluating drugs after their approval for clinical use. N Engl J Med 1993; 329(7): 2029–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pryor D. Are drug companies addicted to higher prices? Bus Soc Rev 1992 Winter: 51–3

  21. Podolsky D. Prescription prizes: drug makers hope giveaways and discounts will snag customers. US News World Rep 1993; 114(12): 56–60

    Google Scholar 

  22. Alster N. A dry period: drug companies lose blockbuster drugs and look for new sources of profit. Forbes 1995; 155(9): 88–92

    Google Scholar 

  23. US Congress, Senate. To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to facilitate the dissemination to physicians of scientific information about prescription drug therapies and devices, and for other purposes. S. 1197, 104th congress, first session; 1995 Aug 11

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Division of Biostatistics, Indiana University, 702 Barnhill Drive - RR135, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202-5200, USA

    Catherine A. Melfi & William M. Tierney

  2. Department of Pharmaceutical and Materiel Services, Indiana University Hospitals, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

    Brenda G. Drake

  3. Regenstrief Institute for Healthcare, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

    William M. Tierney

  4. Health Services Research and Development, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

    William M. Tierney

Authors
  1. Catherine A. Melfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brenda G. Drake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William M. Tierney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Melfi, C.A., Drake, B.G. & Tierney, W.M. The Role of Public Opinion in Drug Resource Allocation Decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 9, 106–112 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199609020-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199609020-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation