↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Do reimbursement recommendation processes used by government drug plans in Canada adhere to good governance principles?

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Do reimbursement recommendation processes used by government drug plans in Canada adhere to good governance principles?
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s144695
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel SB Rawson, John Adams

Abstract

In democratic societies, good governance is the key to assuring the confidence of stakeholders and other citizens in how governments and organizations interact with and relate to them and how decisions are taken. Although defining good governance can be debatable, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) set of principles is commonly used. The reimbursement recommendation processes of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), which carries out assessments for all public drug plans outside Quebec, are examined in the light of the UNDP governance principles and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence system in England. The adherence of CADTH's processes to the principles of accountability, transparency, participatory, equity, responsiveness and consensus is poor, especially when compared with the English system, due in part to CADTH's lack of genuine independence. CADTH's overriding responsibility is toward the governments that "own," fund and manage it, while the agency's status as a not-for-profit corporation under federal law protects it from standard government forms of accountability. The recent integration of CADTH's reimbursement recommendation processes with the provincial public drug plans' collective system for price negotiation with pharmaceutical companies reinforces CADTH's role as a nonindependent partner in the pursuit of governments' cost-containment objectives, which should not be part of its function. Canadians need a national organization for evaluating drugs for reimbursement in the public interest that fully embraces the principles of good governance - one that is publicly accountable, transparent and fair and includes all stakeholders throughout its processes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Unspecified 4 21%
Student > Master 4 21%
Professor 3 16%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Other 4 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,570,885
of 13,888,024 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#88
of 366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,415
of 400,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,888,024 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,517 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.