Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions: A pilot study

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 73-79

  Whitty, Jennifer A ^a   Scuffham, Paul A ^a   Rundle Thiele, Sharyn R ^b  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Formularies; Reimbursement; Social preference

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE SEVERITY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; PILOT STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SURVIVAL;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; AUSTRALIA; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FEMALE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MALE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PILOT PROJECTS; POLICY MAKING;

EID: 79951908003     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11537150-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Development of fourth hurdle policies around the world. In: FreemantleN, Hill S, editors. Evaluating pharmaceuticals for health policy and reimbursement. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004: 67-87
2. Harris AH, Buxton M, O'Brien B, et al. Using economic evidence in reimbursement decisions for health technologies: experience of 4 countries. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2001; 1 (1): 7-12 (Pubitemid 34649740)
3. Morgan SG, McMahonM,Mitton C, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006 Mar- Apr; 25 (2): 337-47 (Pubitemid 43529541)
4. Garcia-Altes A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. Crossnational comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004 Summer; 20 (3): 300-10 (Pubitemid 39079566)
5. McMahon M, Morgan S, Mitton C. The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada? Health Policy 2006 Aug; 77 (3): 339-51
6. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001 May-Jun; 4 (3): 225-50 (Pubitemid 32661267)
7. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra (ACT): Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2008 Dec
8. Sansom L. The subsidy of pharmaceuticals in Australia: processes and challenges. Aust Health Rev 2004 Nov 8; 28 (2): 194-205
9. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). 2008 Feb 15 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ health-pbs-general-listing-committee2.htm [Accessed 2008 Nov 28]
10. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103-9 (Pubitemid 33135698)
11. 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 Making 2008 Sep-Oct; 28 (5): 713-22
12. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. 'Yes', 'No' or 'Yes, but'? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy 2006 Aug; 77 (3): 352-67
13. 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 May; 13 (5): 437-52 (Pubitemid 38660393)
14. Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, et al. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (8): 685-93 (Pubitemid 47124170)
15. Mortimer D, Segal L. Is the value of a life or life-year saved context specific? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Cost Eff Res Alloc 2008 May 20; 6: 8
16. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. The elicitation of distributional judgements in the context of economic evaluation. In: Jones AM, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006: 382-91
17. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005 Feb; 14 (2): 197-208 (Pubitemid 40253634)
18. Schwappach DLB. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect 2002 Sep; 5 (3): 210-22 (Pubitemid 34988187)
19. Rawlins MD. Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy. Clin Med 2005 Sep-Oct; 5 (5): 471-5 (Pubitemid 41503099)
20. Daniels N, Sabin J. Setting limits fairly: can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2002
21. Whitty JA, Rundle-Thiele SR, Scuffham PA. Insights into public preferences for pharmaceutical funding. Int J Pharm Healthcare Mark 2008; 2 (3): 216-34
22. Bryan S, Roberts T, Heginbotham C, et al. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Econ 2002 Dec; 11 (8): 679-93 (Pubitemid 36013518)
23. Gold MR, Franks P, Siegelberg T, et al. Does providing cost-effectiveness information change coverage priorities for citizens acting as social decision-makers? Health Policy 2007; 83: 65-72 (Pubitemid 47058644)
24. Gyrd-Hansen P. Investigating the social value of health changes. J Health Econ 2004 Nov; 23 (6): 1101-16
25. Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, et al. Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values? Health Policy 1995 Nov; 34 (2): 79-94
26. Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, et al. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal 1996 May; 4 (2): 103-11 (Pubitemid 26201254)
27. Schwappach DLB. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ 2003 Apr; 12 (4): 255-67 (Pubitemid 36442815)
28. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 2001 Nov 17; 358 (9294): 1676-81 (Pubitemid 33124325)
29. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, et al. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. Br Med J 2000 Nov 25; 321 (7272): 1316-8
30. Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007 Apr; 12 (2): 73-9 (Pubitemid 46733207)
31. Menon D, Stafinski T, Stuart G. Access to drugs for cancer: does where you live matter? Can J Public Health 2005 Nov- Dec; 96 (6): 454-8 (Pubitemid 41762922)
32. PausJenssen AM, Singer PA,Detsky AS. Ontario's formulary committee: how recommendations are made. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (4): 285-94 (Pubitemid 36337724)
33. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for Euroqol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095-108 (Pubitemid 127453463)
34. Keating GM, Curran MP. Peginterferon-a-2a (40kD) plus ribavirin: a review of its use in the management of chronic hepatitis C. Drugs 2003; 63 (7): 701-30 (Pubitemid 36408076)
35. Wellington K, Perry CM. Venlafaxine extended-release: a review of its use in the management of major depression. CNS Drugs 2001; 15 (8): 643-69 (Pubitemid 32848345)
36. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 1996; 33: 307-17
37. SPSS®. SPSS® for Windows. Version 14.0.0 [computer program]. Chicago (IL): SPSS Inc., 2005
38. Bunch DS, Louviere JJ, Anderson D. A comparison of experimental design strategies for multinomial logit models: the case of generic attributes [report]. Davis (CA): Graduate School of Management, University of California, 1996
39. Burgess L. Discrete choice experiments [computer software]. Sydney (NSW): Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://crsu.science.uts.edu.au/choice/ [Accessed 2008 Oct 8]
40. Burgess L, Street DJ, Viney R, et al. Design of choice experiments in health economics. In: Jones AM, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006: 415-26
41. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005
42. Layton DF, Brown G. Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 2000; 82 (4): 616-24
43. Revelt D, Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 1998 Nov; 80 (4): 647-57 (Pubitemid 128344306)
44. Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health 2009; 12 (2): 354-63
45. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2005 Oct; 14 (10): 1079-83 (Pubitemid 41419196)
46. Greene WH. NLOGIT version 4.0.1 [computer program]. Plainview (NY): Econometric Software, Inc., 2007
47. Greene WH. NLOGIT version 4.0: reference guide. Plainview (NY): Econometric Software, Inc., 2007
48. Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, et al. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ 2006 May; 25 (3): 520-37
49. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Education and work: Australia. Canberra (ACT): Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 May. Report No. 6227.0
50. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Household income and income distribution, Australia. Canberra (ACT): Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003-04. Report No. 6523.0
51. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population by age and sex, Australian states and territories. Canberra (ACT): Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 Dec. Report No. 3201.0
52. Australian Bureau of Statistics. National health survey. Canberra (ACT): Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004-05. Report No. 4364.0