MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943673305 · doi:10.1007/s41669-019-0139-y

A Comparison of Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) Recommendations Amongst the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), Public and Private Payers

2019· review· en· W2943673305 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Naghmeh Foroutan, Jean‐Éric Tarride, Feng Xie, Fergal Mills, Mitchell Levine

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoEconomics - Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpactPrograms for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute
FundersMitacs
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)PopulationHealth careBusinessFamily medicineMedicinePublic healthCost–benefit analysisPrivate sectorActuarial scienceAccountingEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian budget impact analysis (BIA) guidelines were published by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) in 2007. Some Canadian federal, provincial and territorial (F/P/T) drug plans have updated their BIA guidelines since then. The aim of the present review was to provide a comprehensive list of the key BIA recommendations from the various Canadian F/P/T drug plans and private payers and to highlight the differences between those guidelines and the recommendations that were in the Canadian PMPRB 2007 BIA guidelines. We searched the websites of fifteen F/P/T public drug benefit programs including the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and Non-Insured Health Benefits Program (NIHBP) and five private payers' websites. An Excel-based data abstraction form was designed to highlight differences between recommendations relating to the BIA key elements made by different guidelines. Eight BIA guidelines (PMPRB 2007, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, CADTH, and Medavie Blue Cross) were identified and reviewed, and a comprehensive list of recommendations was abstracted. Recommendations were similar to the 2007 guidelines in terms of time horizon duration, comparators, target population assessment and use of direct drug costs in BIAs. Differences were mostly related to actual acquisition cost, such as whether or not to include markups and dispensing fees, the patients' perspective, cost of supplies, cost of health care utilization, and scenario analysis. The recommendations that were not included in the PMPRB 2007 guidelines but were included in at least one of the Canadian F/P/T or private guidelines were related to the inclusion of the patients' perspective (i.e., co-payment), the costing, the handling of uncertainty and the reporting format. The present study is a comparative review of recommendations between the Canadian PMPRB 2007 guidelines and the F/P/T or private payers' BIA guidelines, and provides a most up-to-date list of recommendations for revising the Canadian BIA guidelines, with applicability for both public and private plan new drug submissions in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.689
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.078 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoEconomics - OpenSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207