Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1143–1156 | Cite as

Building Bridges Between Academic Research and Policy Formulation

The PRUFE Framework — an Integral Part of Ontario’s Evidence-Based HTPA Process
Conference Paper

Abstract

Healthcare expenditure in Ontario has been escalating at increasing rates and a growing proportion of this has come from medical devices and other technologies.

A comprehensive evidence-based process for the assessment of new health technologies in Ontario was recently established (the Health Technology Policy Analysis [HTPA] process). Requests for funding for new technologies are directed through a department of the Ministry called the Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS) who, using a systematic and evidence-based approach, provides information on the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of the technology to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC). If the OHTAC determines that the evidentiary base for making recommendations is too uncertain, a request is made to reduce this uncertainty through the conduct of a ‘real world’ Ontario-based study. The Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) reduction of Uncertainty through Field Evaluation (PRUFE) framework is an iterative process for collecting new information, updating prior knowledge and providing new ‘real world’ evidence back to the Ministry regarding the cost effectiveness of new health technologies.

MAS/OHTAC has undertaken evidence-based analyses for >50 new technologies. The PRUFE framework has been successful for reducing uncertainty and controlling healthcare expenditures while providing access and improving patient outcomes.

Keywords

Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Field Evaluation Bare Metal Stent Restenosis Rate Revascularisation Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this paper.

The authors would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the staff from PATH (Jim Bowen, Gord Blackhouse, Natasha Burke, Christine Henderson, Rob Hopkins, Daria O’Reilly, Jean-Eric Tarride and Jan Watson). This paper is dedicated to Bernie O’Brien, the founding director of PATH.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Health care in Canada, 2005. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hay Group. Analysis of health technology utilization and costs. Report to the Medical Advisory Secretariat. 2005 Nov 11 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_mn.html [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodenheimer T. High and rising health care costs. Part 2: technologic innovation. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 932–937PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewin Group. Cutting edge costs: hospital and new technology. Adv Health Am Trend Watch 2002; 4 (4): 1–4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feder BJ. Medical devices is hot, which is why guidant is. New York Times 2006 Jan 21 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/business/21device.html?ex=1159329600&en=ecb9dc0b9d5a9d10&ei=5070 [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murray CJL, Evans DB. Health systems performance assessment: goals, framework and overview. In: Murray CJL, Evans DB, editors. Health systems performance assessment debates, methods and empiricism. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003: 3–22Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/ [Accessed ]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), Australia. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.msac.gov.au/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blue Cross Shield. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bcbs.com/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drug Programs Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/program/ drugs/drugs_mn.html [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ontario Health Technology Assessment Committee. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/ohtac_about.html [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.path-hta.ca/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6: 217–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1055–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Health Technology Assessment Task Group. Health technology strategy 1.0 final report, 2004 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats/iacb-dgiac/ pdf/pubs/2004-tech-strateg/2004-tech-strateg_e.pdf [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garces K. Drug eluting stents: managing coronary artery stenosis following PTCA. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Issues in Emerging Health Technologies 2002 Oct 1 (40): 1–6 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/212_drugelutingstents_cetap_e.pdf [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moussavian M, Casterella PJ, Teirstein PS. Restenosis after angioplasty. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2001; 3 (2): 103–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (23): 1773–1780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moses JW, O’Shaughnessy C, Caputo R, et al. The US multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in coronary lesions: safety outcomes at 9 months [abstract]. Eur Heart J 2002; 23 Suppl. S: 264Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Medical Advisory Secretariat, Cohen E. Review of drug-eluting coronary stents [internal document]. Toronto (ON): Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, 2003: 1–23Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Working group on Drug Eluting Stents, Cohen E (chair). Drug eluting stents. Report on initial utilization strategy: final report and recommendations. Toronto (ON): Cardiac Care Network of Ontario (CCN), 2002: 1–15 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ccn.on.ca/index.cfm?.fuseaction = ts&tm = 23&ts = 163&tsb = 0 [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bowen J, Hopkins R, He Y, et al. Interim report: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions in Ontario, 2005: 1–152 [online]. Available from URL: http://path-hta.ca/report.htm [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shrive FM, Manns BJ, Galbraith PD, et al. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. Can Med Assoc J 2005; 172 (3): 345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lord SJ, Howard K, Allen F, et al. A systematic review and economic analysis of drug-eluting coronary stents available in Australia. Med J Aust 2005; 183 (9): 464–471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mittmann N, Brown A, Seung SJ, et al. Economic evaluation of drug eluting stents. Technology report no. 53. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 2005Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bowen J, DeRose G, Hopkins R, et al. Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of elective endovascular repair compared to open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Interim report to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Medical Advisory Secretariat, 2005: 1–225 [online]. Available from URL: http://path-hta.ca/report.htm [Accessed 2006 Sep 2]Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wright C. The rise and rise of stents. Scrip 2006 Jan: 10–13 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scripmag.com [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH)HamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Center for Evaluation of Medicines (CEM), St. Josephs HealthcareHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS)Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC)TorontoCanada
  5. 5.Department of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations