This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0272989X08315247v1 28/5/713    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Harris, A. H. Articles by Walkom, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Harris, A. H. Articles by Walkom, E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: anthony.harris{at}buseco.monash.edu.au.

	Abstract

Objective. To analyze the relative influence of factors in decisions for public insurance coverage of new drugs in Australia. Data Sources. Evidence presented at meetings of the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) that makes recommendations on coverage of drugs under Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Study Selection. All major submissions to the PBAC between February 1994 and December 2004 (n = 858) if one of the outcomes measured was life year gained (n = 138) or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained (n = 116). Results. Clinical significance, cost-effectiveness, cost to government, and severity of disease were significant influences on decisions. Compared to the average submission, clinical significance increased the probability of recommending coverage by 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.40), whereas a drug in a life-threatening condition had an increased probability of being recommended for coverage of 0.38 (0.06 to 0.69). An increase in $A10,000 from a mean incremental cost per QALY of $A46,400 reduced the probability of listing by 0.06 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.1). Conclusions. The PBAC provides an example of the long-term stability and coherence of evidence-based coverage and pricing decisions for drugs that weighs up the evidence on clinical effectiveness, clinical need, and value for money. There is no evidence of a fixed public threshold value of life years or QALYs, but willingness to pay is clearly related to the characteristics of the clinical condition, perceived confidence in the evidence of effectiveness and its relevance, as well as total cost to government. Key words: decision making; cost-effectiveness; cost-effectiveness thresholds; drug coverage decisions. (Med Decis Making XXXX;XX:xx–xx)

First published on March 31, 2008, doi:10.1177/0272989X08315247

Medical Decision Making 2008;28:713.

A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. M. Clement, A. Harris, J. J. Li, K. Yong, K. M. Lee, and B. J. Manns Using Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness to Make Drug Coverage Decisions: A Comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada JAMA, October 7, 2009; 302(13): 1437 - 1443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Morton, K. Howard, A. C. Webster, G. Wong, and J. C. Craig The cost-effectiveness of induction immunosuppression in kidney transplantation Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 2258 - 2269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]