IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i1d10.1007_s40258-017-0339-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos King Ho Wong

    (The University of Hong Kong
    University of Glasgow)

  • Olivia Wu

    (University of Glasgow)

  • Bernard M. Y. Cheung

    (The University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

The aim of this article is to describe the process, evaluation criteria, and possible outcomes of decision-making for new drugs listed in the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary in comparison to the health technology assessment (HTA) policy overseas. Details of decision-making processes including the new drug listing submission, Drug Advisory Committee (DAC) meeting, and procedures prior to and following the meeting, were extracted from the official Hong Kong Hospital Authority drug formulary management website and manual. Publicly-available information related to the new drug decision-making process for five HTA agencies [the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the Australia Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC)] were reviewed and retrieved from official documents from public domains. The DAC is in charge of systemically and critically appraising new drugs before they are listed on the formulary, reviewing submitted applications, and making the decision to list the drug based on scientific evidence to which safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness are the primary considerations. When compared with other HTA agencies, transparency of the decision-making process of the DAC, the relevance of clinical and health economic evidence, and the lack of health economic and methodological input of submissions are the major challenges to the new-drug listing policy in Hong Kong. Despite these challenges, this review provides suggestions for the establishment of a more transparent, credible, and evidence-based decision-making process in the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary. Proposals for improvement in the listing of new drugs in the formulary should be a priority of healthcare reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos King Ho Wong & Olivia Wu & Bernard M. Y. Cheung, 2018. "Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0339-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-017-0339-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-017-0339-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-017-0339-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    2. Mitton, Craig R. & McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Gibson, Jennifer, 2006. "Centralized drug review processes: Are they fair?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 200-211, July.
    3. Bae, Eun-Young & Hong, Ji-Min & Kwon, Hye-Young & Jang, Suhyun & Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, SeungJin & Yang, Bong-Min, 2016. "Eight-year experience of using HTA in drug reimbursement: South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 612-620.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    2. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    3. Morgan, Steven G. & Thomson, Paige A. & Daw, Jamie R. & Friesen, Melissa K., 2013. "Canadian policy makers’ views on pharmaceutical reimbursement contracts involving confidential discounts from drug manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 248-254.
    4. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    5. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    6. Seung-Lai Yoo & Dae-Jung Kim & Seung-Mi Lee & Won-Gu Kang & Sang-Yoon Kim & Jong Hyuk Lee & Dong-Churl Suh, 2019. "Improving Patient Access to New Drugs in South Korea: Evaluation of the National Drug Formulary System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-15, January.
    7. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.
    8. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Jean Yong & Jaclyn Beca & Jeffrey Hoch, 2013. "The Evaluation and Use of Economic Evidence to Inform Cancer Drug Reimbursement Decisions in Canada," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 229-236, March.
    10. Anna Hobbins & Luke Barry & Dan Kelleher & Koonal Shah & Nancy Devlin & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Ciaran O’Neill, 2018. "Utility Values for Health States in Ireland: A Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1345-1353, November.
    11. Se Hee Lee & Seung-Lai Yoo & Joon Seok Bang & Jong Hyuk Lee, 2020. "Patient Accessibility and Budget Impact of Orphan Drugs in South Korea: Long-Term and Real-World Data Analysis (2007–2019)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-8, April.
    12. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & John S. F. Wright & Anthony J. G. Barron & Sara M. B. Shah & Corinna Klingler, 2017. "Convergence, Divergence and Hybridity: A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment in England and Germany," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8, pages 69-75, March.
    13. Chris Skedgel & Dominika Wranik & Min Hu, 2018. "The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian On," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 467-475, April.
    14. Kerr, Anne & Hill, Rosemary L. & Till, Christopher, 2018. "The limits of responsible innovation: Exploring care, vulnerability and precision medicine," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 24-31.
    15. Rajan Ragupathy & Katri Aaltonen & June Tordoff & Pauline Norris & David Reith, 2012. "A 3-Dimensional View of Access to Licensed and Subsidized Medicines under Single-Payer Systems in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(11), pages 1051-1065, November.
    16. J. Raftery, 2014. "NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 613-615, July.
    17. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    18. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    19. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    20. Shiroiwa, Takeru & Fukuda, Takashi & Ikeda, Shunya & Takura, Tomoyuki, 2017. "New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 836-841.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0339-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.