Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 823–825 | Cite as

Addressing the Challenge for Well Informed and Consistent Reimbursement Decisions

The Case for Reference Models
  • Hossein Haji Ali AfzaliEmail author
  • Jonathan Karnon
Editorial

In the context of ever-increasing healthcare expenditures and resource-limited health services, the comparative analysis of costs and benefits of competing healthcare technologies (e.g. pharmaceuticals) is essential to support public funding decisions. Australia has been at the forefront of the integration of economic evidence with reimbursement decisions to fund new pharmaceutical products through a national-level body, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Pharmaceutical companies submit applications to have their products considered for reimbursement. The PBAC recommendations form the basis of Australian Government decisions about public funding and listing of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), amongst others, has adopted guidelines to use economic evidence for reimbursement decision processes.[1]

Decision analytic models are an expected framework for the economic evaluation of...

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to prepare this manuscript. H.H. worked as an evaluator of submissions to PBAC between 2007 and 2009. J.K. has served as a member of the Economics Sub-Committee (ESC) of the PBAC since 2009.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2011 Mar 2]
  2. 2.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the PBAC [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/pbacguidelines-index [Accessed 2011 Mar 2]
  3. 3.
    Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6: 217–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs A. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, et al. Applied methods of cost effectiveness analysis in health care. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobelt G. Glaucoma care updates: health economics, economic evaluation, and glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002; 11: 531–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 461–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scuffham PA. The assessment of pharmaceuticals for government subsidy in Australia: recent developments. J Med Econ 2007; 10: 163–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (36): iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–158PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public HealthThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations