MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979920017 · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.18464.94721

Proposals for updating the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board pharmaceutical budget impact analysis guidelines for new drug submissions to public and private payers

2019· dissertation· en· W2979920017 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naghmeh Foroutan

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPharmaceutical industryDrugMedicineAccountingPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The main objective of this thesis was to provide a proposal for updating the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) 2007 pharmaceutical budget impact analysis (BIA) guidelines in accordance with the best national and transnational practices in BIA methodology and Canadian stakeholder feedback. Methods: National, transnational and Canadian federal, provincial and private BIA guidelines were reviewed and recommendations were abstracted. A mixed methods study, consisting of semi-structured interviews and a written survey, was designed for obtaining feedback from Canadian stakeholders on the list of BIA recommendations which were either not included or discussed differently in the PMPRB 2007 BIA guidelines. Results: Sixteen BIA guidelines were reviewed and discordant recommendations between the PMPRB 2007 BIA guidelines and rest of the reviewed guidelines were identified. The stakeholder analysis included thirty-five participants and showed support for the inclusion of 56% of the proposed recommendations into the guidelines. These recommendations pertained to the use of expert opinions, data extrapolated from the payers’ database, scenario analysis, and dynamic population. Thirty percent of the recommendations, such as off-label indications in the base-case scenario, indirect costs, and cost transfers from other jurisdictions, were not supported by stakeholders. There was no consensus with respect to the inclusion of recommendations for cost offsets or patient adherence. The final proposal is 49% identical with the PMPRB 2007 BIA guidelines. Thirty-six percent of the proposed recommendations (n=26) are new and the remainder (15%; n=11) are modified. Conclusions: This series of studies has provided sufficient insights to enable the creation of a penultimate version of revised PMPRB BIA guidelines. This penultimate version would be subject to a broader consultation process among stakeholders prior to the adoption of a final revision. Further Canadian stakeholder feedback is required for recommendations where consensus is lacking.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.150 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207