Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee in Australia?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 463-475

  Chim, Lesley ^a,b   Kelly, Patrick J ^a   Salkeld, Glenn ^a   Stockler, Martin R ^a,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d SYDNEY CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Antineoplastics; Cost effectiveness; Decision making; Formularies; Therapeutic use

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; ANTIEMETIC AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CANCER VACCINE; COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOCUMENTATION; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG UTILIZATION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; SOCIETY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; AUSTRALIA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DRUG COSTS; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; MODELS, ECONOMIC; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 77952570979     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11533000-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Lopert R. Evidence-based decision making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme [Commonwealth Fund publication July 2009; online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/ Publications/Issue-Briefs/2009/Jul/Decision-Making-Within-Australia.aspx [Accessed 2009 Sep. 12]
2. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.3. Canberra (ACT): Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.health.gov. au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/ Content/pbacguidelines-in dex [Accessed 2009 Jan 3]
3. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority annual report for the year ended 30 June 2008 [online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.health.gov. au/internet/main/ publishing. nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pricing-pbparpt.htm [Accessed 2009 Jan 3]
4. Thomson J, Schofield L, Mileshkin I, et al. Do oncologists discuss expensive anti-cancer drugs with their patients? Ann Oncol 2006 17:702-8
5. MacKenzie R, Chapman S, Salkeld G, et al. Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: Application of the rule of rescue? J R Soc Med 2008 101:1-8
6. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Fact sheets: Listing of herceptin on the PBS [online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.health.gov. au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/herceptin- govtdecision.htm [Accessed 2009 Sep. 30]
7. Analysis: Trends in time to PBS listing. Pharma in Focus 2009 Sep. 7-13 [online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.pharmainfocus.com.au/FeaturePrint.asp? Featureid=328 [Accessed 2009 Sep. 14]
8. 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(11):(1103)-9
9. Harris A, Hill S, 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 Making 2008 28:713-22
10. McCabe C, Bergmann L, Bosanquet N, et al. Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: A current, multidisciplinary perspective. Ann Oncol 2009;20(3):(403)-12
11. Jefford M, Savulescu J, Thomson J, et al. Medical paternalism and expensive unsubsidised drugs. BMJ 2005 Nov; 331:1075-7
12. Kim P. Cost of cancer care: The patient perspective. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jan; 25 (2):228-32
13. Schrag D, Hanger M. Medical oncologists' views on communicating with patients about chemotherapy costs: A pilot survey. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(2):(233)-7
14. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. PBAC outcomes and public summary documents [online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.health.gov. au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbac-outcomes-and-public-sum mary-documents [Accessed 2008 Sep. 25]
15. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000
16. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme quarterly facts sheet: 1St quarter (January-March) 2008. Medicines Australia [online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.medicinesaustralia.com. au/pages/images/PBS-Quarterly-facts-1st- Quarter-2008-re visedpdf [Accessed 2009 Jun. 5]
17. Shih YC, Halpern MT. Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: How, why and what does it mean? CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58(4):(231)-44
18. Meropol N, Schulman K. Cost of cancer care: Issues and implications. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(2):(180)-6 (Pubitemid 350003031)
19. Low E. Many new cancer drugs in the United Kingdom are facing negative NICE rulings. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(18):(2635)-6
20. Meropol N, Schulman K. Perspectives on the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(2):(169)-70
21. Drummond MF, Mason AR. In reply: European perspective on the costs and cost effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(18):(2637)-8
22. A NICE adaptation [editorial]. Lancet 2009;373(9660): (272)
23. Towse A, Raftery J. Should NICE's threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? BMJ 2009 338:268-9
24. National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising treatments which may extend life, at the end of life. London: Nice, 2009 Jul. [online]. Available from URL: Http://Www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/ devnicetech/endoflifetreatments.jsp? [Accessed 2009 Sep. 24]
25. Chabot I, LeLorier J, Blackstein M. The challenge of conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in oncology using crossover trials: The example of sunitinib for gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Eur J Cancer 2008;44(7):(972)-7