OP71 Road To Public Funding Of Cancer Codependent Technologies In Australia In The Last Ten Years

Abstract

Introduction

In Australia, cancer codependent technologies (cCDTs) mostly comprise a biomarker targeting medicine and a companion diagnostic test (CDx). Health technology assessment (HTA) of cCDTs is carried out to inform funding deliberations on CDxs by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) and on personalized medicine by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). To understand the strengths and weaknesses of this dual assessment mechanism, we studied the journey of cCDTs in getting funding support from the two committees since the introduction of the codependent technology evaluation framework.

Methods

Public summary documents summarizing deliberations by each committee were reviewed from 2012 to 2022. Information was retrieved on the patient indication, date, biomarkers related to the tests, and PBAC or MSAC funding outcomes. The alignment of HTA decisions, time taken until dual funding approval (if approved), and the reasons for discrepant and negative decision-making were determined.

Results

From 2012 to 2022, a total of 26 cCDT applications were submitted to PBAC and MSAC, corresponding with 43 paired PBAC/MSAC considerations and 11 single committee considerations. Non-small cell lung cancer and programmed cell death ligand 1 were the most frequently nominated cancer and biomarker test, respectively. When a cCDT was submitted in the same decision round to both committees, 60 percent of funding decisions were aligned, reaching 73 percent when the considerations were made separately (resubmissions). Only 9 percent of considerations received polarized, where one committee supported and the other committee rejected funding. After multiple resubmissions, 73 percent of cCDTs obtained dual funding support after an average of 34.8 weeks, with considerations by PBAC and MSAC occurring an average of 2.3 and 1.9 times, respectively.

Conclusions

Most cCDTs obtain funding support, but only after multiple resubmissions to PBAC and MSAC. Polarized decisions are rare. Reasons for rejection primarily relate to uncertain clinical benefit and an unacceptably high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.