Abstract
Background
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) is an independent statutory body, established to provide recommendations to the Australian Minister for Health detailing which health technologies should be considered for subsidisation under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Objective
The study was designed to investigate the influence of economic evaluations with respect to the PBAC decision-making process. The study examined the likelihood of reimbursement in light of a pharmaceutical’s incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), testing the notion that the PBAC is unwilling to recommend for reimbursement pharmaceuticals beyond a certain threshold.
Methods
All 156 pharmaceutical submissions to the PBAC encompassing the period of July 2005 to March 2007 were reviewed. The consistency of reimbursement decisions were tested on the basis of cost and cost effectiveness using quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcomes. Chi-squared tests, Fisher exact tests and logistic regression analyses were undertaken to determine whether a statistically significant relationship existed between a pharmaceutical’s cost effectiveness in relation to the likelihood of attaining reimbursement.
Results
The PBAC was increasingly reluctant to recommend pharmaceuticals beyond a cost-effectiveness ratio of $A45,000 per QALY, with a clear inverse relationship between the ICER and probability of reimbursement.
Discussion
The results of this study reveal that the PBAC is not bound by an absolute decision rule. However, reimbursement decisions over the study period appear to be consistent within the boundaries of a cost-effectiveness threshold.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wonder MJ, Neville AM, Parsons R. Are Australians able to access new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in a more or less timely manner? An analysis of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommendations, 1999–2003. Value Health. 2006;9:205–12.
Henry DA, Hill SR, Harris A. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2005;294:2630–2.
Duckett SJ. Drug policy down under: Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Health Care Financ Rev. 2004;25:55.
Aristides M, Mitchell A. Applying the Australian guidelines for the reimbursement of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;6:196–201.
Stephen JM, Handke B, Doshi JA, et al. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comp Effectiveness Res. 2012;2:29–44.
Public Summary Documents by Meeting [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/public-summary-documents-by-meeting. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.
Department of Health. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.4). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 2013.
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/ausfta. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/guide_to_the_methods_of_technology_appraisal_reference_n0515.jsp. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.
Stevens A, Colin-Jones D, Gabbay J. Quick and clean: authoritative health technology assessment for local health care contracting. Health Trends. 1995;272:37–42.
Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437–52.
George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991–1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:1103–9.
Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28:713–22.
Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77:352–67.
Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA. 2005;294:2618–22.
Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submission to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2000;283:2116–21.
Anell A. Priority setting for pharmaceuticals: the use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5:28–35.
Birch S, Gafni A. The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11:46–51.
Gorham P. Cost-effectiveness guidelines: the experience of Australian manufacturers. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;8:369–73.
Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7:518–28.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Professor Elizabeth Geelhoed (Head of School/Professor (Health Economics and Policy), School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia) for her reviews, guidance and supervision throughout this study. The author also wishes to also extend this appreciation to the anonymous reviewers who provided insightful comments, suggestions and feedback.
This research project was undertaken at The University of Western Australia. Following the study completion, the author has since gained employment at Roche Products Pty Limited, Dee Why. The views expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not represent the views of any affiliated institutions past or present.
No funding sources or conflicts of interests are declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ngo, P. The Influence of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations on Reimbursement in Australia: A Retrospective Study of Decisions made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Pharm Med 28, 187–193 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-014-0063-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-014-0063-5