Decision-makers′ use of pharmacoeconomics: what does the research tell us?

References

• Jacobs P The Economics of Health and Medical Cate, 4th edition Aspen Publications, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD, USA (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Hillman AL, Pauly MV, Escarce JJ et al Financial incentives and drug spending in managed care. Health Affairs 18(2), 189–200 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• •An empiric study of different financial incentives, risks and prescription drug utilization in alternate HMO models.
   Google Scholar
• Berndt ER. The US pharmaceutical industry: why major growth in times of cost containment? Health Affairs (Ivillwood)20(2), 100–114 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Discusses the nonprice contributors to increased prescription drug spending in the USA since 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Annemans L, Geneste B, Jolain B. Early modelling for assessing health and economic outcomes of drug therapy. Value in Health 3(6), 427–434 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lyles A. Pharmacoeconomics under defined contributions and tiered formularies. Gun. Ther. 23(9), 1568–1569 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Lyles A, Luce BR, Rentz AM. Managed care pharmacy, socieconomic assessments and drug adoption decisions. Soc. Sc]. Med.45(4), 511–521 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• ••An empiric study of the use of socioeconomic assessments and formulary decisions in managed care pharmacy
   Google Scholar
• Motheral BR, Grizzle AJ, Armstrong EP, Cox E, Fairman K. Role of pharmacoeconomics in drug benefit decision-making: results of a survey. Formulary35 (5), 412–421 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Evans C, Dukes EM, Cranwford B. The role of pharmacoeconomic information in the formulary decision-making process. J Manw. Care Pharmag, 6(2), 108,113-121 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Luce BR, Lyles CA, Rentz AM. The view from managed care pharmacy. Health Affairs 15(4), 168–176 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Grabowski H. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in managed care decisions. Pharmacoeconomics14\(Supp1. 1), 15–24 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Grabowski H, Mullins CD. Pharmacy benefit management cost-effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions. Soc. Sc]. Med. 45(4), 535–544 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Harris KE. PBMs get subpoenas in federal probe, may delve into rebate, drug-switching. Healthcare Fraud Report 4(6), 199 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Fox DM, Leichter HM. Rationing care in Oregon: the new accountability. Health Affairs 10(2), 7–27 (1991).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••A detailed treatment of the forces leadingto and subsequently influencing the direction of OBHSA.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM. Value judgment in the Oregon Medicaid experiment. Med. Care 32(10), 975–988 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond ME Basing Prescription drug payment on economic analysis: the case of Australia. Health Affairs (Mlwood) 11, 191–196 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAIVIA 283(16), 2116–2121 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••An empiric study of DHAC submissionscontaining evaluations of technical merit and implications for guideline development.
   Google Scholar
• Grobler MP, Macarownas-Kirchmann K, Pearce GA, Stafford M. Industry comment on the 1995 revised Australian pharmacoeconomic guidelines. PharmacoEconomics 9(4), 353–356 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Glennie JL, Torrance GW, Baladi JF et al The revised canadian guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 15(5), 459–468 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anis AH, Gagnon Y. Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions: so much for guidelines. PharmacoEconomics18(1), 55–62 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anell A, Svarvar P Pharmacoeconomic and clinical practice guidelines: a survey of attitudes in Swedish formulary committees. PharmacoEconomics 17(2), 175–185 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM on behalf of the EUROMET group. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European study. Health Policy 52,179–192 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• ••Empiric results from a survey across nineEU states on the extent of use, barriers and requirements for economic evaluation studies.
   Google Scholar
• Elixhauser A, Helpern M, Schmier J, Luce BR. Healthcare CBA and CEA from 1991 to 1996: an updated bibliography. Med. Care 36(5 Suppl.), MS1-9 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• •A comprehensive assessment of the CEA/ CBA literature with detailed trend analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Ellrodt G, Cook DG, Lee J, Cho M, Hunt D, Weingarten S. Evidence-based disease management. JAIVIA 278,1687–1692 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond ME A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? PharmacoEconomics 14 (1), 1–9 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1,155–158 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 282,1453–1457 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Gagnon JP. Sources of bias in the economic analysis of new drugs: To the editor. JAIVIA283(11), 1423 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LePen C. Sources of bias in the economic analysis of new drugs: To the editor. JAMA283(11), 1423 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Kassirer JP, Angell M. The Journali policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl. J. Med. 331(10), 669–670 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• ••This editorial clarifies the N Engl. jMeds policy on CEA and explains its rationale.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson TO and the BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BE Med. 313, 275–283 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. JAIVIA 283(16), 2158–2159 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •The need for and feasibility of transparent PhEc analysis, including postpublication reviews.
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM eta]. Sponsorship, authorship and accountability Lancet358(9284), 854–856 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein (Eds.). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• •This Task Force report contains extensive information on CEA, consideration of alternatives and recommendations for practice standards.
   Google Scholar
• Clemens K, Townsend R, Luscombe F, Mauskopf J, Osterhaus J, Bobula J. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America. PharmacoEconomics 8(2), 169–174 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagnon JP, Smith MD, Rindress D et al. Proceedings of the advisory panel meeting and conference on pharmacoeconomic issues. Value in Health 2(2), 67–72 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mather DB, Sullivan SD, Augenstein D, Fullerton DS, Atherly D. Incorporating clinical outcomes and economic consequences into drug formulary decisions: a practical approach. Am j Manag. Cam 5(3), 277–285 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• •Describes the current drug dossier process employed by Regence and the rationale for its development.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan SD, Lyles A, Luce BR, Gricar J. AMCP Guidance for submission of clinical and economic evaluation data to support formulary listing in US Health Plans and pharmacy benefits management organizations. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 7 (4), 272–282 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Provides a detailed procedural and substantive discussion of specific guidelines for drug dossiers to be used in formulary decisions.
   Google Scholar
• Avey S. News from the Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy (FMCP) AMCP News 13(11), 3–9 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• HCFA. National health expenditures by type of service and source of funds: calendar years 1960–96. File: NHE96.xls. Available from: www.hcfa.gov. Accessed: May 13, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• KFF. Prescription Drug Trends: A chartbook update. The Kaiser Family Foundation. November 2001. Available at: www.kff.org/content/2000/3019. Accessed: December 1, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• AdvancePCS. AdvancePCS Fiscal Year 2001Annual Report. Available at: http:// media.corporate-innet/media_files/NSD/advp/reports/APCSFY01AR_Narrative.pdf. Accessed: December 1, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Express Scripts. About Express Scripts. Available at: www.expressscripts.com/other/ company/about_esi.htm. Accessed: December 1, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Merck-Medco. Merck Annual Report 2000. Available at: www.anrpt2000.comaccess2.htm#3. Accessed: December 1, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• ISPOR. Task Force on Use of Pharmacoeconomic/Health Economics Information in Healthcare Decision-Making. Available at: www.ispor.org/ workpaper/healthscience/TFPEUse.pdf. Accessed: November 21, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• NICE. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Available at: www.nice.org.uld article.asp?a = 329 Accessed: December 2, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• ISPOR. Pharmacoeconomics: Identifying the Issues: Advisory Panel Reports. Available at: www.ispor.org/workpaper/adpanel-index.html. Accessed: December 2, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• AMCP. Gricar JA, Langley PC, Luce B, Lyles A and Sullivan SC. A Format for Submission of Clinical and Economic Data in Support of Formulary Consideration by Managed Healthcare Systems in the United States. 2000. Available at: www.amcp.org/ publications/format.pdf. Accessed: December 2, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• FDA. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Modernization Act. November 21, 1997. Available at: www.fda.gov/opacom/ 7modact.html. Accessed: April 5, 2001.
   Google Scholar