Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Training is the Key to Successful Guideline Implementation

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The market for pharmacoeconomic analysis is rapidly expanding. Demand for experienced investigators seems to have outpaced the capacity of both the academic community and industry to train qualified practitioners. The result is that many professionals charged with producing and using cost-effectiveness and other drug-related economic evaluation studies may lack the basic skills required to carry out their duties. This, in turn, raises concerns regarding the credibility and integrity of the field as a whole. In our opinion, the adoption of self-imposed practice guidelines is a necessary first step in confronting these issues. However, the power of guidelines to promote responsible practice will be limited by the technical preparation of the analysts charged with adhering to them. A long term solution requires a collaborative commitment, on the part of both the academic community and the private sector, to targeted graduate training in pharmacoeconomic methods, and to the provision of ample opportunities for continuing professional education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in the medical literature. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116(3): 238–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Neumann PJ, Wright J, Zinner DE. Are methods for estimating QALYs improving? Med Decis Making. In press

  3. Evans RG. Manufacturing consensus, marketing truth: guidelines for economic evaluation. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 59–60

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kuhlik B. The FDA’s regulation of pharmaceutical communications in the context of managed care: a suggested approach. Food Drug Law J 1995; 50: 23–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zitter Group and Technology Assessment Group, Inc. The 1995 pharmaceutical outcomes activities report. San Francisco: Zitter Group, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jones M. Twenty-five hottest careers for women. Working Woman 1995 July; 20(7): 31

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stemeroff M, Gagnon JP, Goulli NE. The evolving structure of health economics. Scrip Mag 1997; 3: 37–9

    Google Scholar 

  8. Association for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. A survey of pharmacoeconomic research in the United States. Princeton: APOR News 1996 Sep-Oct; 2: 1

    Google Scholar 

  9. IMS America Ltd. Health economics in the USA: expectations, applications and future directions. Plymouth Meeting (PA); IMS America Ltd., 1996

    Google Scholar 

  10. Worthen DB. New opportunities for pharmacoeconomic research: an industry view. J Res Pharm Econ 1989; 1: 91–9

    Google Scholar 

  11. Draugalis JR. Updating skills: pharmacoeconomics as continuing education. Top Hosp Pharm Manage 1994; 13: 72–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gregor KJ, Draugalis JR. Graduate pharmacoeconomic education and training programs in U.S. colleges of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ 1994; 58: 378–81

    Google Scholar 

  13. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Identifying health technologies that work: searching for evidence. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994 Sep. Report no.: OTA-H-608

    Google Scholar 

  14. Elixhauser A, Luce BR, Taylor R, et al. Health care CBA/CEA: an update on the growth and composition of the literature. Med Care 1993; 27: S190–204

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lee JL, Sanchez LA. Interpretation of ‘cost-effective’ and soundness of economic evaluations in the pharmacy literature. Am J Hosp Pharm 1991; 48: 2622–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ganiats TG, Wong AF. Evaluation of cost-effectiveness research: a survey of recent publications. Fam Med 1991; 23: 457–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Draugalis JR. Assessing pharmacoeconomic studies. In: Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WF, editors. Principles of pharmacoeconomics. 2nd ed. Cincinnati: Harvey Whitney Books, 1996: 278–89

    Google Scholar 

  18. Draugalis JR, Coons SJ. Pharmacoeconomic research — facilitating collaboration among academic institutions, managed-care organizations, and the pharmaceutical industry: a conference report. Clin Ther 1995; 17: 89–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Draugalis JR, Coons SJ. The role of colleges of pharmacy in meeting the pharmacoeconomic needs of the pharmaceutical industry: a conference report. Clin Ther 1994; 16: 523–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Paltiel AD. The FDA’s oversight of pharmacoeconomic analysis. Health Aff 1996; 15: 54–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schulman K, Rubenstein L, Blick H, et al. Relationships between sponsors and investigators in pharmacoeconomic and clinical research. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(3): 206–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hillman A, Eisenberg J, Pauly M, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1362–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Luce BR. Cost-effectiveness analysis: obstacles to standardization and its use in regulating pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3(1): 1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: report of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966

    Google Scholar 

  25. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 61–70

    Google Scholar 

  26. Garattini A, Grilli R, Scopellitti D, et al. A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(1): 1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 1st ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  28. Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the PBAC: draft for external comment. Canberra: Australian Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  29. Genduso LA, Kotsanos JG. Review of health economic guidelines in the form of regulations, principles, policies, and positions. Drug Inf J 1996; 30: 1003–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Detsky AS. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3(5): 354–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1(1): 54–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kassirer J, Angell M. The journal’s policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. British Medical Journal Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Washington, DC: PhRMA, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  35. Integrated Pharmaceutical Services and Foundation Health Corporation. Guidelines for formulary submissions. Rancho Cordova (CA): Integrated Pharmaceutical Services and Foundation Health Corporation, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  36. Langley PC, Sullivan SD. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations: guidelines for drug purchasers. J Manag Care Pharm 1996; 2(6): 671–7

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kessler D, Rose J, Temple R, et al. Therapeutic class wars: drug promotion in a competitive marketplace. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1350–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Food and Drug Administration, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertizing, and Communications. Principles for the review of pharmacoeconomic promotion: draft guidelines. Rockville (MD): US Food and Drug Administration, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  39. Meitzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the ‘societal perspective’ on costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. Under review

  40. Maynard A. Economic evaluation techniques in health care: reinventing the wheel? Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11(2): 115–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Draugalis JR, Jones-Grizzle AJ. Pharmacy education and pharmacoeconomics. J Pharm Teaching 1991; 2: 3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, 60 College Street, New Haven, Connecticut, 06520-8034, USA

    A. David Paltiel

  2. Program on the Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Peter J. Neumann

Authors
  1. A. David Paltiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. David Paltiel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paltiel, A.D., Neumann, P.J. Why Training is the Key to Successful Guideline Implementation. Pharmacoeconomics 12, 297–302 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712030-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712030-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation