Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Case
-
Reference no. 2005-29.1
Published by: The Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)
Originally published in: 2005
Version: 23-08-05

Abstract

In August 1999, Warwick Wilkinson, Chair of the National Competition Review of Pharmacy, was reading the submissions received by the review team in preparation for writing his interim report. When he read the joint submission from the Pharmacy Guild and Pharmaceutical Society, he realised he had to make a decision. The National Competition Policy Review of Pharmacy legislation was unusual in eliciting explicit public presentation of quantitative estimation of the benefits and costs of pharmacy ownership provisions. It is therefore a useful case for pursuing issues as to how evidence-based analysis influenced public decision-making.
Location:
Other setting(s):
1999

About

Abstract

In August 1999, Warwick Wilkinson, Chair of the National Competition Review of Pharmacy, was reading the submissions received by the review team in preparation for writing his interim report. When he read the joint submission from the Pharmacy Guild and Pharmaceutical Society, he realised he had to make a decision. The National Competition Policy Review of Pharmacy legislation was unusual in eliciting explicit public presentation of quantitative estimation of the benefits and costs of pharmacy ownership provisions. It is therefore a useful case for pursuing issues as to how evidence-based analysis influenced public decision-making.

Settings

Location:
Other setting(s):
1999

Related