Comment on “Ahead of Its Time? Reflecting on New Zealand’s Pharmac Following its 20th Anniversary”: Clarification from PHARMAC: PHARMAC Takes No Particular Distributive Approach (Utilitarian or Otherwise)

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 32, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1031-1033

  Metcalfe, Scott ^a   Grocott, Rachel ^a   Rasiah, Dilky ^a  

^a Pharmaceutical Management Agency   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG CONTROL; HISTORY; HUMAN;

DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; HUMANS;

EID: 84916878351     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0208-0     Document Type: Letter

References (31)

1. Gauld R. Ahead of its time? Reflecting on New Zealand’s Pharmac following its 20th anniversary. Pharmacoeconomics. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40273-014-0178-2/fulltext.html. 2014 Jun 7.
2. Braae R, McNee W, Moore D. Managing pharmaceutical expenditure while increasing access. The Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;16(6):649–60.
3. Brougham M, Metcalfe S, McNee W. Our advice? Get a budget! Healthc Pap. 2002;3:83–6. http://www.longwoods.com/content/16915.
4. Metcalfe S. Clarifications on how New Zealand has contained expenditure on drugs. BMJ. 2010;334:c2441. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/clarifications-how-new-zealand-has-contained-expenditure-drugs (comments on Cumming J, Mays N, Daubé J. How New Zealand has contained expenditure on drugs. BMJ. 2010;340:c2441).
5. New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (NZPHD Act), s47(a). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0091/latest/DLM80878.html.
6. PHARMAC. Operating policies and procedures of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (“PHARMAC”). 3rd ed. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2006. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2005/12/22/231205.pdf. 2.2 Decision criteria.
7. PHARMAC. How should high cost medicines be funded? Paper for public consultation. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2006. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2006/12/15/HCM.pdf. Appendix three: the two full reports and nine reviews of those reports.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgments: principles for the development of NICE guidance. 2nd ed. 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=283494.
9. Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJV. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1097–107. http://adisonline.com/pharmacoeconomics/Abstract/2004/22170/Reconciliation_of_Economic_Concerns_and_Health.1.aspx.
10. Mortimer D. The value of thinly spread QALYs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(9):845–53. http://adisonline.com/pharmacoeconomics/Abstract/2006/24090/The_Value_of_Thinly_Spread_QALYs.3.aspx.
11. Dolan P, Olsen JA. Equity in health: the importance of different health streams. J Health Econ. 2001;20:823–34.
12. Hope T, Reynolds J, Griffiths S. Rationing decisions: integrating cost-effectiveness and other values. In: Rhodes R, Battin MP, Silvers A, editors. Medicine and social justice: essays on the distribution of health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. Chapter 11. p. 144–155.
13. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):197–208. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.924/pdf.
14. Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4:231–245. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5295600.
15. Hansen P. A theoretical review of PHARMAC’s over-arching approach to deciding which pharmaceuticals to fund, including high cost ones. In: PHARMAC. How should high cost medicines be funded? Paper for public consultation. December 2006. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2006/12/15/HCM.pdf. Appendix three: the two full reports and nine reviews of those reports.
16. PHARMAC. PHARMAC’s decision criteria consultation document. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2013. http://www.pharmac.health.nz/news/consultation-2013-05-17-decision-criteria/, http://www.pharmac.health.nz/assets/consultation-2013-05-17-decision-criteria-review.pdf.
17. Harris A. Appendix 2: Professor Anthony Harris’ discussion paper—On what basis should we decide about health care priorities? Full article. Appendix to: PHARMAC’s decision criteria consultation document. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2013. http://www.pharmac.health.nz/assets/consultation-2013-05-17-decision-criteria-review.pdf p. 15–20.
18. Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5:210–22.
19. Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J Health Econ 1991;10(1):21–41. Erratum in: J Health Econ 1993;12(2):237.
20. Singer P, McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J. Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation. J Med Ethics. 1995;21:144–50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376689/pdf/jmedeth00296-0016.pdf.
21. Harris J. Double jeopardy and the veil of ignorance—a reply. J Med Ethics. 1995;21:151–7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376690/pdf/jmedeth00296-0023.pdf.
22. McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J, Singer P. Double jeopardy, the equal value of lives and the veil of ignorance: a rejoinder to Harris. J Med Ethics. 1996;22(4):204–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376998/pdf/jmedeth00303-0014.pdf.
23. PHARMAC. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis. Version 2.1. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2012. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2012/06/26/PFPAFinal.pdf.
24. Harris A. A key objective of PHARMAC is to fund pharmaceuticals that are cost effective in meeting the health needs of the population, writes Australian health economist Professor Anthony Harris. PHARMAC Annual Review 2010/11. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2011. http://www.pharmac.health.nz/assets/annual-review-2011.pdf. p. 12–13.
25. NICE seeks views on how it assesses drugs and other technologies for the NHS. NICE media release 27 March 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/News/Press-and-Media/nice-seeks-views-on-how-it-assesses-drugs-and-other-technologies-for-the-nhs.
26. NICE. Methods of technology appraisal consultation, last updated 23 May 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/InConsultation/GID-INCONSULTATION/html/p/methods-of-technology-appraisal-consultation?id=2cbiqn4bjozoxf4h6trcemndea.
27. PHARMAC. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis. Version 2.0. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2007. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2012/06/26/PFPAFinal.pdf.
28. PHARMAC. Guidelines for funding applications to PHARMAC. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2010. http://www.pharmac.health.nz/assets/funding-applications-guidelines.pdf.
29. Grocott, R. Applying programme budgeting marginal analysis in the health sector: 12 years of experience. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon. 2009;9:181–7. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1586/erp.09.2.
30. Grocott R, Metcalfe S, Alexander P, Werner R. Assessing the value for money of pharmaceuticals in New Zealand—PHARMAC’s approach to cost-utility analysis. NZ Med J. 2013;126(1378):60–73. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2013/vol-126-no-1378/5735.
31. Metcalfe S, Grocott R. Comments on “Simoens S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6:2950–2966”—New Zealand in fact has no cost-effectiveness threshold. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(4):1831–4. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/4/1831.