Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 661–670 | Cite as

Do economic evaluations have a role in decision-making in Medicine Management Committees? A qualitative study

  • Li-Chia ChenEmail author
  • Darren M. Ashcroft
  • Rachel A. Elliott
Research Article

Abstract

Objective

To explore pharmacists’ perceptions on the use of economic evaluations in decision-making within Medicine Management Committees (MMCs), identify factors that influence the uptake of economic evidence and examine the usefulness of different presentations of economic evidence.

Method

This two-stage qualitative study was carried out in July and August 2004 in two hospitals in northwest England. First, a researcher observed the decision-making process at two MMCs. Handwritten notes were made during observation, which were later transcribed. Subsequently, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of pharmacists involved in the MMCs. The interviews explored pharmacists’ views on the usefulness of economic evaluations in decision-making, the factors influencing the uptake of economic evidence by the MMCs, and the optimal presentation of economic results. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. All the transcribed data were thematically analysed using the constant comparison approach.

Results

In all, six new drug applications were observed and ten pharmacists were interviewed. Pharmacists were observed to play an important role in decisions about drug formularies in hospitals. Although interviewees considered that timely economic evaluations would be useful in reviewing new medicines, the actual use of economic evidence in decision-making within MMCs was limited. The barriers to using economic evaluations included pharmacists’ lack of initiative to search for and difficulty in understanding economic evaluations, and the perceived availability, credibility and transferability of economic studies. However, the main barrier to implementing economic evidence was the decision makers’ concern about the impact of the medicines on the hospitals’ drug budgets. Interviewees felt that they understood and trusted disaggregated economic results better than aggregated ones.

Conclusion

This study found the use of economic evidence in decision-making at both MMCs was limited. To improve the usefulness of economic evaluations in MMCs, members of MMCs will need more training in accessing, understanding and appraising economic evidence; researchers need to improve the credibility and transferability of economic studies, and present the results in clear and understandable ways. However, due to the restricted focus of local, short-term drug budgets, evidence-based decision-making remains a challenge for local MMCs.

Keywords

Budget Decision-making Economic evaluations Health economics Medicine management committee United Kingdom 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants who took part in this study, Miss Penny Lewis for attending the ethics committees’ meeting, Mr. Wayne Boyle and Dr. Liz Seston for comments on the manuscript.

Financial support University of Manchester, UK; Ministry of Education, Taiwan, ROC

References

  1. 1.
    Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, Diez L. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom–Phase II. Is health economics ‘for good or evil’? Health Policy 1999;46(2):143–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Reference N0515. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee including major submissions involving economic analysis. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services; 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Ontario: Ministry of Health; 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johannesson M. Economic evaluation of drugs and its potential uses in policy making. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;8(3):190–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drummond M, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the U.K Soc Sci Med 1997;45(4):583–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wise J. Report lays out strategy to end “postcode prescribing”. Brit Med J 2000;320(7241):1027a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jenkings KN, Barber N. What constitutes evidence in hospital new drug decision-making? Soc Sci Med 2004;58(9):1757–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walley T, Barton S, Cooke J, Drummond M. Economic evaluations of drug therapy: attitudes of primary care prescribing advisers in Great Britain. Health Policy 1997;41(1):61–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lavis JN, Ross SE, Stoddart GL, Hohenadel JM, McLeod CB, Evans RG. Do Canadian civil servants care about the health of populations? Am J Public Health 2003;93(4):658–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 2003;81(2):221–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coyle D. Increasing the impact of economic evaluation on health-care decision-making. Centre for Health Economic Discussion Paper 108 ed. England: University of York; 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ 1995;311(6998):182–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Britten N. Qualitative interview in health care research. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2000. p. 11–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000;320(7227):114–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 174–94.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thorne S. Data analysis in qualitative research. ENB Notebook 2000;3:68–70.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004;329(7472):972–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1167–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hillman A, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV. Avoiding bias in the conduct of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1362–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedberg M, Saffron B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999;282(15):1453–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005;43(7 Suppl):5–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Drummond MF, McGuire A. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bryan S, Brown J. Extrapolation of cost-effectiveness information to local settings. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3(2):108–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    UKPDS Group. Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ 1998;317(7160):720–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sculpher MJ, Poole L, Cleland J, Drummond M, Armstrong PW, Horowitz JD, et al. Low doses vs. high doses of the angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in chronic heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study. The ATLAS Study Group. Eur J Heart Fail 2000;2(4):447–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li-Chia Chen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Darren M. Ashcroft
    • 1
  • Rachel A. Elliott
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations