Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study.
health economics
health policy
health services administration & management
quality in health care
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Mar 2024
13 Mar 2024
Historique:
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
14
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada. Repeated cross-sectional study. The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category. From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%. A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38485176
pii: bmjopen-2023-082568
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082568
pmc: PMC10941152
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e082568Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: ÉG, SR, YZ and KP are employees of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, an independent quasi-judicial agency of the Federal Government of Canada. SR was a negotiating member of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) on behalf of British Columbia PharmaCare from 2016 to 2022. KP was a negotiating member of the pCPA on behalf of the New Brunswick Drug Plan from 2011 to 2021. MT has received consulting fees from Health Canada, CADTH and Green Shield Canada.
Références
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022 Jan;20(1):67-77
pubmed: 34228312
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Sep 1;24(1):16-24
pubmed: 28186712
CMAJ Open. 2022 Sep 27;10(3):E848-E855
pubmed: 36167420
Value Health. 2019 Mar;22(3):362-369
pubmed: 30832975
JRSM Open. 2023 May 24;14(5):20542704231166620
pubmed: 37255526
CMAJ. 2023 Jun 12;195(23):E815-E820
pubmed: 37308215
Value Health. 2020 Sep;23(9):1137-1141
pubmed: 32940230
PLoS Med. 2021 May 11;18(5):e1003606
pubmed: 33974641
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020 Aug 27;18:29
pubmed: 32874138
Health Policy. 2022 Oct;126(10):1018-1022
pubmed: 35970691
BMJ. 2017 Oct 4;359:j4530
pubmed: 28978555