Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 173–174 | Cite as

Comparing Subsidized Access to Medicines Across Payer Systems

  • Michael WonderEmail author
  • Richard Milne
Correspondence
  • 270 Downloads

Dear Editor,

We note the original research article by Ragupathy et al. [1] from New Zealand (NZ) on access to licensed and subsidized medicines under single-payer systems in the USA, the UK, Australia and NZ published in the November 2012 issue of PharmacoEconomics. This cross-sectional study found that the UK NHS subsidized the most entities, the newest entities and the most innovative entities; and that NZ’s Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) subsidized the fewest entities, the oldest entities and the fewest innovative entities [1]. Similarly, we reported 12 months earlier that in the past decade, public access to new medicines in NZ was more limited and delayed compared with Australia, which we attributed largely to a capped pharmaceuticals budget [2]. Unfortunately, these authors did not cite our paper.

We understand the authors’ motivation to include the USA as a study country. The challenge is to find a representative payer system, as the USA has many payers and no true...

Keywords

Rabies Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee Australian Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme Medicine Price Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No funding was received for this letter and no other individual or organization was involved. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ragupathy R, Aaltonen K, Tordoff J, Norris P, Reith D. A 3-dimensional view of access to licensed and subsidized medicines under single-payer systems in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):1051–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wonder M, Milne R. Access to new medicines in New Zealand compared to Australia. N Z Med J. 2011;124(1346):12–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen J, Cairns C, Paquette C, Faden L. Comparing patient access to pharmaceuticals in the UK and US. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(3):177–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilson A, Cohen J. Patient access to new cancer drugs in the United States and Australia. Value Health. 2011;14(6):944–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wonder M. Patient access to new cancer drugs in the United States and Australia (letter). Value Health. 2012;15(2):397–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mason A, Drummond M, Ramsey S, Campbell J, Raisch D. Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(20):3234–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Department of Health and Ageing. National immunisation program schedule. Canberra: Australian Government; 2012. http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips2. Accessed 19 Oct 2012.
  8. 8.
    New Zealand Ministry of Health. National immunisation register. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2012. http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/immunisation/national-immunisation-register. Accessed 20 Oct 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wonder Drug ConsultingCronullaAustralia
  2. 2.Health Outcomes AssociatesAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Population HealthUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations