Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 669–678 | Cite as

Health Economics in the Canadian Pharmaceutical Industry

  • Lila Assiff
  • Michael R. Pollock
  • Patricia Manzi
  • Ben Faienza
  • Devidas Menon
Original Research Artic

Abstract

Objective: To assess the goals, strategic focus, structure, capabilities, activities and effectiveness of health economics (HE) departments in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry, to examine how these have evolved, and the implications of HE in the future of the pharmaceutical industry.

Design and Interventions: A mixture of telephone and face-to-face interviews with members of the HE unit (survey 1) and the chief executive officers (CEOs) [survey 2] of the top 21 Canadian pharmaceutical companies was undertaken in 1997.

Main outcome measures and results: 17 out of 21 companies responded to the first survey, and 12 of the 17 CEOs responded to our second survey. The goals of the HE department in most of the pharmaceutical companies have evolved from supporting efforts to gain reimbursement on government drug plans to include pricing, promotion, internal decision-making and other activities. Members of the HE department perceive their work to be valuable to the company. The CEOs felt that the true value of HE data is not adequately understood by formulary reviewers and, therefore, HE data may be an impediment to market access.

Conclusions: The purpose of the HE department is to demonstrate the value of the company’s product to provincial government insurers. However, pharmaceutical companies are having difficulty justifying the importance of the HE department because of inconsistencies in the interpretation of economic evaluations by healthcare payers.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Economic Evaluation Chief Executive Officer Market Access Head Office 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    MacDonald F. Strategic use for pharmacoeconomics in the early stages of drug development. ADrug Information Association Workshop on Health Economics Presentation: The Impact of Economic Evaluation on New Drug Development and Marketing: 1993 Nov 14–17; LisbonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walker S. Socioeconomic evaluation of medicines: a survey of the global pharmaceutical industry. A Drug Information Association Workshop on Health Economics Presentation: The Impact of Economic Evaluation on New Drug Development and Marketing: 1993 Nov 14–17; LisbonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kunze ZM, Lumley CE, Walker SR. Socioeconomic evaluation of medicines: a survey of the international pharmaceutical industry. Surrey: Centre for Medicines Research International, 1993: 2–32Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ikeda S, Oliver AJ, Ikegami N. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Japanese pharmaceutical companies. Drug Inf J 1998; 32: 169–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersson F. Why is the pharmaceutical industry investing increasing amounts in health economic evaluations?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11: 750–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Favourable reimbursement for CNS drugs no longer guaranteed. PharmacoEcon Outcomes News 1998; 165: 11Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carmine B. Update and evaluation of Australian guidelines: industry perspective. Med Care 1996 34: DS226–32Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell A. Update and evaluation of Australian guidelines: government perspective. Med Care 1996; 34: DS216–25Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anis AH, Rahman T, Schechter MT. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 119–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baladi JF, Menon D, Otten N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: 2 years’ experience in Canada. Health Econ 1998; 7: 221–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mandelkar J. Outcomes: the science of prescribing. Bus Health 1995; 13: 28–30Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porter RJ. Economic factors in the development of new antiepileptic drugs. Adv Neurol 1998; 76: 239–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clemens K, Garrison LPJ, Jones A, et al. Strategic use of pharmacoeconomic research in early drug development and global pricing. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4: 315–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Todd C. What makes health economics research useful to decision-makers? Pharmaco Econ Outcomes News 1998; 170: 3–4Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiang PJ, Einarson TR. A survey of pharmacoeconomics in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. Drug Inf J 1998; 32: 619–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    IMS Canada. IMS academic reference manual: Canadian health care information for pharmacy academics and students. Mississauga (ON): IMS Canada, 1997Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 1st ed. Ottawa (ON): CCOHTA, 1994Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto (ON): Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lila Assiff
    • 1
  • Michael R. Pollock
    • 2
  • Patricia Manzi
    • 3
  • Ben Faienza
    • 4
  • Devidas Menon
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Health EconomicsEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Optimal Strategic Decisions Inc.OakvilleCanada
  3. 3.Abbott Laboratories Ltd.St. LaurentCanada
  4. 4.Bayer Inc.EtobicokeCanada
  5. 5.Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations