Relationship between financial impact and coverage of drugs in Australia

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 92-100

  Mauskopf, Josephine ^a   Chirila, Costel ^a   Masaquel, Catherine ^a   Boye, Kristina S ^b   Bowman, Lee ^b   Birt, Julie ^b   Grainger, David ^b  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Australia; Budget impact; Financial impact; PBAC; Reimbursement

Indexed keywords

BUDGET CONTROL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; QUALITY CONTROL;

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AUSTRALIA; BUDGET IMPACT; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; ECONOMIC VARIABLES; FINANCIAL COVERAGE; FINANCIAL IMPACTS; PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE; REIMBURSEMENT; UPPER BOUND;

COST EFFECTIVENESS;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG INDICATION; FINANCIAL DEFICIT; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT; SURVIVAL;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AUSTRALIA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 84874456473     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0266462312000724     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Haute Autorit'e de Sant'e (HAS), College des Economistes de la Sante. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. 2004. [cited 2010 October 18].Available from: Http://www.ispor.org/ peguidelines/source/France-Guidelines-HE-Evaluation.pdf
2. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care) (IQWiG). IQWiG methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German statutory health care system, version 1.1. 2008. [cited 2010 October 18]. Available from: Http://www.iqwig.de/download/08-01-24-Draft-Methods-of-the- Relation-of-Benefits-to Costs-Version-1-0.pdf
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Single technology appraisal specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence. 2009. [cited 2010 October 18]. Available from: Http://www. nice.org.uk/media/E29/DF/SpecificationForManufacturerSponsorSubmi ssionofEvidenceDraft.pdf
4. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, version 4.2. 2007. [cited 2010 October 18]. Available from: Http:// www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacguidelinesindex
5. WellPoint. Health technology assessment guidelines. 2008. [cited 2010 October 18]. Available from: Https://www.wellpointnextrx.com/shared/ noapplication/f1/s0/t0/pw-ad080614.pdf
6. Cohen J, Stolk E, Niezen M. The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:727-34
7. Cohen JP, Stolk E, Niezen M. Role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions. J Health Politics Law. 2008;33:225-47
8. Niezen MGH, Busschbach JJV, Cohen JP, Stolk EA. Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact on drug reimbursement decisions. Int J Tech Assess Health Care. 2009;25:49-55
9. Mauskopf JA, EarnshawS,Mullins CD.Budget impact analysis: Reviewof the state of the art. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005;5:65-79
10. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices - budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10:336-47
11. Mauskopf JA. Prevalence-based economic evaluation. Value Health. 1998;1:251-9
12. Chim L, Kelly PJ, Salkeld G, Stockler MR. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:463-75
13. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: A comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:1437-43
14. Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. 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
15. Hosmer DWJr, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2000:95
16. Allison PD. Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1995:219-22
17. Strobl C, Malley J, Tutz G. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychol Methods. 2009;14:323-48
18. Scott JG, Bauchet L, Fraum TJ, et al. Recursive partitioning analysis of prognostic factors for glioblastoma patients aged 70 years or older. Cancer. 2012; doi:10.1002/cncr.27570. [Epub ahead of print
19. Duckett SJ. Drug policy down under: Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Health Care Financ Rev. 2004;25:55-65