Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T09:00:01.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

Erika Turkstra Open the ORCID record for Erika Turkstra [Opens in a new window] ,
Emilie Bettington ,
Maria L. Donohue  and
Merehau C. Mervin
Erika Turkstra
Affiliation:
Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National Universityerikaturkstra@hotmail.com
Emilie Bettington
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University
Maria L. Donohue
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University
Merehau C. Mervin
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine submissions made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and assess whether the predicted financial impact was associated with a recommendation. The second objective was to assess whether the financial and utilization estimates for listing the proposed medicine were reliable.

Methods: Data were extracted from public summary documents of major submissions considered by the PBAC from 2012 to 2014. Information collected included whether submissions were accepted, rejected, or deferred; estimated use; and financial impact. For those submissions that were recommended in 2012 and listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) by January 2014, a comparison was made between predicted and actual use and cost in 2014, based on PBS utilization.

Results: In 2012 to 2014, the PBAC considered 142 unique major submissions; of those, 65 were recommended for listing. A higher financial cost to the government was a statistically significant factor in predicting rejection (p = .004 for cost > AUD 30 million Australian dollars [20.7 million Euros] compared with cost-saving). Of the submissions that were recommended in 2012 and listed by 2014, the actual use was higher than predicted for 5/19 medications. The estimated cost was outside the predicted bracket of cost for 10/19 medications, with 8/19 medications having threefold underestimated expenditure, and 2/19 items having lower than predicted expenditure.

Conclusions: This study highlights that the predicted financial impact of a medication to the PBS budget is associated with a PBAC recommendation and also highlights that predicted use may not reflect actual prescribing practices.

Keywords

ReimbursementHealth budgetResource allocationPharmaceutical Benefits Advisory CommitteeBudget impact analysis
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Mini-Theme: Stories of HTA Impact , 2017 , pp. 521 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Wonder, M, Dunlop, S. Assessment of the quality of the clinical evidence in submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Fit for purpose? Value Health. 2015;18:467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Department of Health. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme June 2015. www.pbs.gov.au (accessed September 2015).Google Scholar
3. Lopert, R, Viney, R. Revolution then evolution: The advance of health economic evaluation in Australia. J Evid Qual Health Care. 2014;108:360–366.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Hailey, D. The history of health technology assessment in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:61–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.4). Canberra: Department of Health 2013.Google Scholar
6. Sansom, L. The subsidy of pharmaceuticals in Australia: Processes and challenges. Aust Health Rev. 2004;28:194–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Niezen, MG, de Bont, A, Busschbach, JJ, Cohen, JP, Stolk, EA. Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:49–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Cohen, J, Stolk, E, Niezen, M. The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:727–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Cohen, J, Stolk, E, Niezen, M. Role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2008;33:225–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Mauskopf, J, Walter, J, Birt, J, et al. Differences among formulary submission guidelines: Implications for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:261–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Department of Human Services. Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule statistics: Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule item reports Medicare Australia Statistics; 2015. http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/pbs_item.jsp (accessed September 2015).Google Scholar
12. Drug Utilisation Sub-Committee (DUSC). Pazopanib and sunitinib for renal cell carcinoma: Analysis of predicted versus actual utilisation September 2014. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/participants/public-release-docs/pazopanib-sunitinib (accessed September 2015).Google Scholar
13. Harris, AH, Hill, SR, Chin, G, Li, JJ, Walkom, E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: A retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:713–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Chim, L, Kelly, PJ, Salkeld, G, Stockler, MR. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:463–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Mauskopf, J, Chirila, C, Masaquel, C, et al. Relationship between financial impact and coverage of drugs in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:92–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Prescribing and Primary Care Team Health and Social Care Information Centre. Use of NICE apprised medicines in the NHS in England - 2012, experimental statistics. 2014;v1.1.Google Scholar
17. Lin, L, Zhao, YJ, Chew, PT, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of topical prostaglandin analogues for primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48:1585–1593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed