Advertisement
ADVANCED SEARCH

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bourgault, C. Articles by Suissa, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bourgault, C. Articles by Suissa, S. Related Collections Health Economics - see also Medicare Rationing Other drug use Other medicare

Reference-based pricing of prescription drugs

exploring the equivalence of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors

From (Bourgault, Suissa) the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Que.; (Bourgault, Elstein, Suissa) the Pharmacoepidemiology Research Unit, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Que.; and (Lorier) the Centre de recherche de l'Hotel-Dieu de Montreal, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Que.

Abstract

Background: Reference-based pricing is a cost-containment policy applied to prescription drugs that are in the same class and deemed to be therapeutically equivalent. Recent reference-based pricing measures have targeted several drug classes, including angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. The objective of this study was to assess whether patients treated for hypertension with various ACE inhibitors differed in their utilization of health care services and hence, whether the various ACE inhibitors should be considered therapeutically equivalent.

Methods: A retrospective cohort was formed from 4709 Saskatchewan residents aged 40-79 years who initiated treatment for hypertension with 1 of the 3 most frequently prescribed ACE inhibitors (captopril, enalapril or lisinopril) between Jan. 1, 1991, and Dec. 31, 1993. Information obtained from universal insurance databases included prescription drug use, the number of visits to a general practitioner (GP) or specialist and the number of hospital admissions during the year before treatment was initiated and during a follow-up period of up to 4 years. Rates were statistically adjusted for potential confounding variables and compared across treatment groups.

Results: Of the 4709 patients, 529 were prescribed captopril initially, 2939 enalapril and 1241 lisinopril. After treatment was initiated patients prescribed captopril were dispensed more medications on average, with an overall rate of 18.6 prescriptions per patient per year (v. 16.4 and 14.7 for enalapril and lisinopril users respectively); they were admitted to hospital more often, and they made more visits to GPs and specialists. The adjusted rate ratio of the number of visits to a GP for patients receiving enalapril, relative to captopril, was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.88), and for those receiving lisinopril it was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.83). The adjusted rate ratios for the number of visits to a specialist were similar but lower, and for the number of hospital admissions they were 0.82 for patients prescribed enalapril initially (95% CI 0.73-0.93) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.75) for those prescribed lisinopril.

Interpretation: Patients with hypertension who are initially prescribed captopril used health care services more than those initially prescribed enalapril or lisinopril. This suggests that ACE inhibitors may not be therapeutically equivalent.

Numerous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for reducing blood pressure. ^[13-25] Indeed, ACE inhibitors are considered a homogeneous drug class ^[26,27] and have been targeted for reference-based pricing. However, some studies have reported that ACE inhibitors differ in potency, duration and site of action, dosage form, drug interactions, side-effect profile and efficacy. ^[22-41] If these differences lead to variations in the use of health care services (e.g., physician visits, hospital admissions and prescription drug use) the assumption of the equivalence of drugs underlying reference-based pricing would be violated.

We examined the potential impact of reference-based pricing of ACE inhibitors on the use of health care services. Specifically, we assessed whether hypertensive patients initially prescribed captopril, enalapril or lisinopril differed in their use of health care services and, hence, whether ACE inhibitors should be considered equivalent.

Methods

We used the prescription, medical care and hospital admission databases for Saskatchewan residents ^[42-45] to construct a cohort of patients aged 40-79 years who were initiating pharmacologic therapy for hypertension with an ACE inhibitor between Jan. 1, 1991, and Dec. 31, 1993. There was no policy for reference-based pricing of ACE inhibitors in Saskatchewan at that time. For each prescription dispensed on an outpatient basis, the following information was obtained: the dispensing date, the nature, strength and dosage form of the drug, the quantity dispensed and the cost. For each visit to a physician the date of the visit and the specialty of the physician were recorded; for hospital admissions, the dates of admission and discharge, the primary and secondary discharge diagnoses (coded using the International Classification of Disease, 9th revision ^[46]) and the vital status at discharge were recorded. Demographic data included sex, date of birth, date of death (if applicable) and socioeconomic status at treatment initiation (evaluated by whether patients were receiving social assistance or not).

To identify only patients initiating therapy, we excluded patients dispensed an antihypertensive agent in the preceding 12 months. Several measures were taken to exclude patients receiving an antihypertensive agent for indications other than uncomplicated hypertension. Patients prescribed an ACE inhibitor for chronic heart failure or renal scleroderma were excluded based on their use of digoxin, oral corticosteroids or pencillamine in the year before treatment initiation. Patients prescribed anticoagulants, loop diuretics or other cardiac agents, or those admitted to hospital with heart disease (ICD-9 codes 402, 404, 410, 420.9-429.9 or 745.4-746.9) in the same period were also excluded because they may have had pre-existing cardiac disease. Finally, patients possibly presenting with transient hypertension were excluded by retaining only those dispensed 3 or more antihypertensive prescriptions in the first year.

To ensure that a sufficient number of observations were obtained for each treatment group, only patients dispensed 1 of the 3 most frequently prescribed ACE inhibitors (captopril, enalapril and lisinopril) when treatment was initiated were included in the study. The cohort entry date was the date of receipt of the first prescription, and the patient was categorized by the drug he or she was prescribed initially. Patients were followed until Dec. 31, 1994, they left the province, their insurance coverage ended or they died, whichever came first.

Poisson regression models for rates accounting for extra-Poisson between-subject variation ^[47] were used to compare the 3 treatment groups. These regression techniques permitted adjustment for potential confounding by age, sex, socioeconomic status and year of treatment initiation. Differences in comorbidity were partially accounted for by statistically adjusting for physician visits, hospital admissions and drug use (NSAIDs, psychotropic agents and drugs for respiratory illness, diabetes mellitus, rheumatism, ulcers, epilepsy and hyperlipidemia) in the year preceding treatment initiation. Crude and fully adjusted models with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

To assess the use of health care services after treatment was initiated, we compared the number of visits to general practitioners (GPs) and specialists and the number of hospital admissions across subjects according to the ACE inhibitor first prescribed, with captopril as the reference. Rates were computed as incidence-density rates, with outpatient time (number of events per patient per year) as the denominator to account for differences in the length of follow-up. Analyses included all health care services utilization, including any that arose secondary to the treatment of hypertension (e.g., changing drugs, adjusting dose) or related to side effects.

Results

Of the 27 710 patients who were prescribed any antihypertensive agent between Jan. 1, 1991, and Dec. 31, 1993, and satisfied the inclusion criteria, 529 patients were prescribed captopril initially, 2939 enalapril and 1241 lisinopril. Table 1 presents characteristics of these patients at treatment initiation and in the year preceding treatment. A greater proportion of patients prescribed captopril were older, male and receiving social assistance at treatment initiation than patients initially prescribed enalapril or lisinopril. They also received their first antihypertensive prescription at an earlier date, particularly when compared with patients given lisinopril at first; lisinopril was not available in Saskatchewan until July 1991. Health care services utilization in the year before the antihypertensive treatment was initiated also differed between the 3 groups. Patients in the captopril group were more likely to have received a prescription drug for a respiratory illness or diabetes, whereas a smaller proportion of patients received an anticonvulsant, NSAID, psychotropic agent or a drug for ulcer, asthma or rheumatism. Although a greater proportion of patients initially prescribed captopril were admitted to hospital in the year before treatment, patients in this group made fewer visits to GPs than those first prescribed enalapril or lisinopril.

After treatment was initiated patients prescribed captopril were dispensed more medications on average, with an overall rate of 18.6 prescriptions per patient per year (v. 16.4 and 14.7 for enalapril and lisinopril users respectively [Table 2]). Patients in the captopril group were also admitted to hospital more often and made more visits to GPs and specialists after treatment initiation than those in the other 2 groups.

After adjustment for potential confounders, the rates for visits to a GP or specialist and admissions to hospital were significantly higher among patients prescribed captopril initially than among those prescribed enalapril or lisinopril (Table 3).

To test the consistency of these results across different levels of comorbidity, a stratified analysis was performed based on the number of hospital admissions in the year before treatment (Table 4). The rates of visits to a GP remained significantly higher among patients taking captopril for patients with one or no admissions to hospital in the previous year. This suggests that patients prescribed enalapril and lisinopril made fewer subsequent visits to a GP only if they were healthier before treatment was initiated. The greater number of visits to a specialist among the captopril users was attenuated for patients admitted to hospital once; among those not admitted or admitted to hospital twice or more, enalapril and lisinopril still showed a "protective" effect when compared with captopril. This variability could be a result of random error, as indicated by overlapping confidence intervals.

We carried out additional analyses to addresses the comparability of the groups and the role of potential confounding variables (data not shown). First, we stratified the comparisons according to patients' health status (as indicated by prescription drug use or hospital admissions) in the year preceding treatment; the results were similar to those of the main analyses and indicated that treatment initiation with lisinopril or enalapril was associated with lower rates of health care utilization than treatment with captopril. We also restricted the analyses to the 1580 patients who used a single agent at treatment initiation, who did not switch to another antihypertensive drug during the course of their treatment and who had not been admitted to hospital in the year preceding treatment initiation. When this was done most of the previously observed significant differences between groups disappeared; this could have been due to the substantially reduced sample size, however.

Interpretation

Our study showed that patients with hypertension who are initially prescribed enalapril or lisinopril visit a physician less frequently and appear to be at lower risk for admission to hospital than patients initially prescribed captopril. Our results suggest that ACE inhibitors may not be therapeutically equivalent, as previously suggested, ^[22-41] and this would contradict the fundamental assumption underlying reference-based pricing. Thus, the anticipated savings from such a policy may be offset by the subsequent costs arising from an increase in the use of health care services. ^[48,49]

Several concerns have been raised about the reference-based pricing of prescription drugs and the potential impact such a policy may have on patient care and overall expenditures. ^[7-11] Uncontrolled studies involving patients with hypertension have reported substantial cost savings and equal therapeutic efficacy when substituting benazepril for enalapril, ^[50] lisinopril for captopril ^[51] or quinapril for either captopril, enalapril or lisinopril. ^[52] However, most of these clinical studies suffered from small samples, short follow-up or a lack of control over potential confounding variables. No randomized controlled trial has yet demonstrated the differential impact of ACE inhibitors on health care outcomes; any differences between inhibitors beyond those of initial cost remain to be determined. ^[48,49]

The usefulness of nonexperimental studies in evaluating the efficacy of a particular drug treatment in the population is well known. ^[53,54] However, without randomization these studies may be confounded by selective prescribing as a function of disease status or comorbidity as well as other characteristics of the patient or GP. This may not have been a major problem in our study because official guidelines and medical textbooks do not differentiate between specific ACE inhibitors for treatment initiation. Moreover, we adjusted for factors that we thought might affect health care services utilization; ^[55] for example, we excluded patients with suspected cardiovascular disease and also examined subgroups of patients thought to be healthier. However, differences may have remained between the groups that could have biased the results.

Another limitation of our study stems from the use of computerized databases of drug dispensing; dispensing data may not accurately reflect actual drug use. Furthermore, we did not account for different patterns of prescription drug use, and this may have distorted our results, particularly if nonadherence to the initial treatment was systematically associated with the use of health care services.

Our study illustrates the complexities involved in evaluating reference-based pricing and confirms the need for more research. Ideally, increasing costs of prescribed drugs should be offset by improvements in health care services, and the short-term benefits of reference-based pricing should be weighed against long-term impact. Whether reference-based pricing really achieves its objectives and the implications the policy may have for access to health care and efficiency and quality of health care need to be examined.

We thank Mrs. Mary McNutt of the Saskatchewan Research Services, Population Health Branch, for assistance with the data and Dr. Marc Baltzan for useful comments on the manuscript.

This study was funded by a grant from Zeneca Pharmaceuticals Canada, Ltd. The Pharmacoepidemiology Research Unit is funded by an equipe grant from the Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec. Chantal Bourgault is the recipient of doctoral fellowships from the National Health Research and Development Program of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Samy Suissa is a Senior Scientist from the Medical Research Council of Canada. Data were provided by the Saskatchewan Department of Health. The authors were fully independent in conception, design, analysis, interpretation and reporting, and the statements presented do not necessarily represent those of the Government of Saskatchewan.

Competing interests: None declared

This article has been peer reviewed.

Reprint requests to: Dr. Samy Suissa, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, 687 Pine Ave. W, Ross 4.29, Montreal QC H3A 1A1

References

1. National health expenditures in Canada 1975-1996. Ottawa: Health System and Policy Division, Health Canada; 1997. Cat no H21-99/1996.
2. McLaughlin PR. Reference-based pricing of prescription drugs. Can J Cardiol1997;13:31-2.[Medline]
3. Woollard RF. Opportunity lost: a frontline view of reference-based pricing [editorial]. CMAJ1996;154(8):1185-8.[Abstract]
4. Strom BL. Generic drug substitution revisited. N Engl J Med1987;316:1456-62.[Medline]
5. Kaplan NM. Clinical hypertension. 7th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998.
6. McGregor M. Coverage of drug costs: reference-based pricing. Can J Cardiol1998;14:666-8.[Medline]
7. Rigter H. Recent public policies in the Netherlands to control pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement. Pharmacoeconomics1994;6(Suppl 1):15-21.
8. Canadian Cardiovascular Society. A position paper on drug-pricing strategies for prescription pharmaceuticals in Canada. Can J Cardiol1997;13:33-45.[Medline]
9. MacLeod SM. Improving physician prescribing practices: bridge over troubled waters [editorial]. CMAJ1996;154(5):675-7.[Abstract]
10. Rubin RJ, Mendelson DN. A framework for cost-sharing policy analysis. Pharmacoeconomics1996;10:56-67.
11. Boulet AP, Tessier G. Reference-based pricing in British Columbia; implications for cardiologists. An analysis. Can J Cardiol1997;13:46-51.[Medline]
12. Olley PM, McLaughlin PR. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society and reference-based drug pricing. Can J Cardiol1998;14:669-70.[Medline]
13. Rush JE, Merrill DD. The safety and tolerability of lisinopril in clinical trials. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987;9(3 Suppl):S99-107.
14. Inman WH, Rawson NS, Wilton LV, Pearce GL, Speirs CJ. Postmarketing surveillance of enalapril. I: Results of prescription-event monitoring. BMJ1988;297:826-9.
15. Herpin D, Conte D. Assessment of the antihypertensive effect of lisinopril using 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. J Hum Hypertens1989;3(Suppl 1):11-5.
16. Rush JE, Lyle PA. Safety and tolerability of lisinopril in older hypertensive patients. Am J Med1988;85:55-9.[Medline]
17. Murray NH. Duration of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition: implications for tolerability. Cardiology1991;79(Suppl 1):22-9.
18. Espinel CH, Williams JL, Coughlin SS. Enalapril and lisinopril in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther1990;12:181-90.[Medline]
19. Moyses C, Higgins TJ. Safety of long-term use of lisinopril for congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol1992;70:91C-97C.[Medline]
20. Paris RC, Miller LJ. Adverse effects of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. An update. Drug Saf1992;7:14-31.[Medline]
21. Howes LG. Critical assessment of ACE inhibitors. Part 2. Aust Fam Physician1995;24:641-3.
22. Jenkins AC, Dreslinski GR, Tadros SS, Groel JT, Fand R, Herczeg SA. Captopril in hypertension: seven years later. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1985;7:S96-101.
23. Waeber B, Gavras I, Brunner HR, Gavras H. Safety and efficacy of chronic therapy with captopril in hypertensive patients: an update. J Clin Pharmacol1981;21:508-16.[Abstract]
24. Wiser T, Young LY. Essential hypertension. In: Young LV, Koda-Kimble M, editors. Applied therapeutics. The clinical use of drugs. 4th ed. Vancouver: Applied Therapeutics; 1988. p. 123-59.
25. McAreavey D, Robertson JI. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and moderate hypertension. Drugs1990;40:326-45.[Medline]
26. Gavras H, Gavras I. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. Properties and side effects. Hypertension 1988;11:II37-II41.
27. Gerbrandt KR, Yedinak KC. Formulary management of ACE inhibitors. Pharmacoeconomics1996;10:594-613.[Medline]
28. Lancaster SG, Todd PA. Lisinopril. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use in hypertension and congestive heart failure. Drugs1988;35:646-69.[Medline]
29. Edwards CR, Padfield PL. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: past, present and bright future. Lancet1985;1:30-4.[Medline]
30. Riley LJ Jr, Vlasses PH, Ferguson RK. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutic applications of the new oral converting enzyme inhibitor, enalapril. Am Heart J1985;109:1085-9.[Medline]
31. Irvin JD, Viau JM. Safety profiles of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors captopril and enalapril. Am J Med 1986;(Suppl 4C):46-50.
32. Case DB. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: Are they all alike? J Clin Hypertens1987;3:243-56.[Medline]
33. Gavras I, Gavras H. Captopril and enalapril. Ann Intern Med1983;88:556-7.
34. Rotmensch HH, Vlasses PH, Ferguson RK. Resolution of captopril-induced rash after substitution of enalapril. Pharmacotherapy1983;3:131-3.[Medline]
35. Conway J, Coats AJ, Bird R. Lisinopril and enalapril in hypertension: a comparative study using ambulatory monitoring. J Hum Hypertens1990;4:235-9.[Medline]
36. Gosse P, Dallocchio M, Gourgon R. ACE inhibitors in mild to moderate hypertension: comparison of lisinopril and captopril administered once daily. French Cooperative Study Group. J Hum Hypertens1989;3:23-8.
37. Gourlay S, McNeil J, Forbes A, McGrath B. Differences in the acute and chronic antihypertensive effects of lisinopril and enalapril assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Clin Exp Hypertens1993;15:71-89.
38. Plotquin Y, Barmat R, Bolanos R, Kirszner T, Saggese O, Bedrossian P, et al. Comparative study of the efficacy and duration of action of enalapril and lisinopril using 48-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Acta Therapeutica1993;19:229-40.
39. Siche JP, de Gaudemarie R, De Lorraine A, Jalbert M, Mansour P, Madonna O, et al. Comparative trial of lisinopril and captopril (once daily) in mild to moderate essential hypertension: benefit of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. In: Keane WF, editor. A focus on the clinical effects of a long-acting ACE inhibitor / Hypertension. New York: Raven Press; 1990. p. 31-9.
40. Whelton A, Miller WE, Dunne B Jr, Hait HI, Tresznewsky ON. Once-daily lisinopril compared with twice-daily captopril in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: assessment of office and ambulatory blood pressures. J Clin Pharmacol1990;30:1074-80.[Abstract]
41. Whelton A, Dunne B Jr, Glazer N, Kostis JB, Miller WE, Rector DJ, et al. Twenty-four hour blood pressure effect of once-daily lisinopril, enalapril, and placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens1992;6:325-31.[Medline]
42. West R. Saskatchewan health databases: a developing resource. Am J Prev Med1987;4(Suppl 2):25-7.
43. Strand LM, Downey W. Health databases in Saskatchewan. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 1994. p. 217-29.
44. Rawson N. Aspects of the validity of the Saskatchewan administrative health care utilization datafiles [abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994;3(Suppl 1):S3.
45. Malcolm E, Downey W, Strand LM, McNutt M, West R. Saskatchewan Health's linkable databases and pharmacoepidemiology. Post Market Surveil1993;6:175-264.
46. World Health Organization. Manual of the international statistical classification of diseases, injuries and causes of death. 9th ed rev. Geneva: The Organization; 1977.
47. McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized linear models. 2nd ed. Monograph on statistics and applied probability 37. London (UK): Chapman and Hall; 1989.
48. Reeder CE, Lingle EW, Schultz RM, Mauch RP Jr, Nightengale BS, Pedersen CA, et al. Economic impact of cost-containment strategies in Third Party Programmes in the US (Part I). Pharmacoeconomics1993;4:92-103.[Medline]
49. Kozma CM, Schulz RM, Dickson WM, Dye JT, Cox ER, Holdford DA, et al. Economic impact of cost-containment strategies in Third Party Programmes in the US (Part II). Pharmacoeconomics1993;4:187-202.[Medline]
50. Briscoe TA, Dearing CJ. Clinical and economic effects of replacing enalapril with benazepril in hypertensive patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm1996;53:2191-3.
51. Gill TH, Hauter F, Pelter MA. Conversions from captopril to lisinopril at a dosage ratio of 5:1 result in comparable control of hypertension. Ann Pharmacother1996;30:7-11.[Abstract]
52. Hilleman DE, Mohiuddin SM, Wurdeman RL, Wadibia EC. Outcomes and cost savings of an ACE inhibitor therapeutic interchange. J Man Care Pharm1997;3:219-23.
53. Borden EK. Pharmacoepidemiology in Canada in the '90s - Where is the role in treatment decision-making? Can J Clin Pharmacol1996;3:165-6.
54. Strom BL, Melmon KL. The use of pharmacoepidemiology to study beneficial drug effects. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 1994. p. 449-67.
55. Strom BL, Miettinen OS, Melmon KL. Postmarketing studies of drug efficacy: When must they be randomized? Clin Pharmacol Ther1983;34:1-7.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Schneeweiss, M. Maclure, B. Carleton, R. J Glynn, and J. Avorn Clinical and economic consequences of a reimbursement restriction of nebulised respiratory therapy in adults: direct comparison of randomised and observational evaluations BMJ, March 6, 2004; 328(7439): 560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Schneeweiss, A. M. Walker, R. J. Glynn, M. Maclure, C. Dormuth, and S. B. Soumerai Outcomes of Reference Pricing for Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitors N. Engl. J. Med., March 14, 2002; 346(11): 822 - 829. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Schneeweiss, S. B. Soumerai, R. J. Glynn, M. Maclure, C. Dormuth, and A. M. Walker Impact of reference-based pricing for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on drug utilization Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 1, 2002; 166(6): 737 - 745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Anis Why is calling an ACE an ACE so controversial? Evaluating reference-based pricing in British Columbia Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 1, 2002; 166(6): 763 - 764. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. V. Grootendorst, L. R. Dolovich, B. J. O'Brien, A. M. Holbrook, and A. R. Levy Impact of reference-based pricing of nitrates on the use and costs of anti-anginal drugs Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 1, 2001; 165(8): 1011 - 1019. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Menon Pharmaceutical Cost Control In Canada: Does It Work? Health Aff., May 1, 2001; 20(3): 92 - 103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. H. Anis Pharmaceutical policies in Canada: another example of federal-provincial discord Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 1, 2000; 162(4): 523 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. McGregor Reference-based pricing Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 1, 2000; 162(1): 14 - 14. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Nakagawa and R. Hudson Reference-based pricing Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 1, 2000; 162(1): 12 - 12. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Grootendorst and A. Holbrook Evaluating the impact of reference-based pricing Can. Med. Assoc. J., August 1, 1999; 161(3): 273 - 274. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bourgault, C. Articles by Suissa, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bourgault, C. Articles by Suissa, S. Related Collections Health Economics - see also Medicare Rationing Other drug use Other medicare

HOME	CURRENT ISSUE	PAST ISSUES	COLLECTIONS	HELP	SEARCH
Copyright 1995-1999, Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p) All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.