The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand use different criteria for public funding of pharmaceuticals, but all include estimates of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
Drug appraisal is done through the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, and the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) in NZ.
Of the 10 drugs deemed least cost-effective by NICE between 1996 and 2005, all were approved for funding in the UK, six were approved in Australia and five were approved in NZ.
Australia and NZ refused funding for drugs for obesity, influenza and growth deficiency.
All three countries made exceptions in order to fund drugs of poor cost-effectiveness for some “dread” diseases, but some drugs for less alarming conditions were either not funded or heavily restricted.
- 1. Jacobzone S. Pharmaceutical policies in OECD countries: reconciling social and industrial goals. Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers 40. Paris: OECD, 2000.
- 2. Hill S, Henry D, Stevens A. The use of evidence in drug selection: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In: Moynihan R, editor. Informing judgment: case studies of health policy in six countries. New York: Millbank Memorial Fund and Cochrane Collaboration, 2001.
- 3. Mitchell AS. Antipodean assessment: activities, actions and achievements. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 203-212.
- 4. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004; 329: 972-975.
- 5. Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001; 323: 1300-1303.
- 6. Metcalfe S, Dougherty S, Brougham M, Moodie P. PHARMAC measures savings elsewhere to the health sector. N Z Med J 2003; 116: U362.
- 7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NO515. London: NICE, 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201973 (accessed Oct 2007).
- 8. Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC): including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: DHA, 2002. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pubs-guidelines-index.htm (accessed Oct 2007).
- 9. PHARMAC (Pharmaceutical Management Agency). PHARMAC decision criteria. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/pharmaceutical_schedule_update.asp (accessed Oct 2007).
- 10. Richardson J, McKie J. The rule of rescue. Working paper 112. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 2000. http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp112.pdf (accessed Oct 2007).
- 11. 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: 1103-1109.
- 12. Danzon PKJD. Reference pricing of pharmaceuticals for Medicare: evidence from Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003.
- 13. Kanavos P, Rheinhardt U. Reference pricing for drugs: is it compatible with US health care? Health Aff (Millwood) 2003; 22: 16-30.
- 14. Raftery J. Review of NICE’s recommendations, 1999-2005. BMJ 2006; 332: 1266-1268.
- 15. Department of Health. Cost-effective provision of disease modifying therapies for people with multiple sclerosis. Health Service Circular 2002/004. London: Department of Health, 2002. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Healthservicecirculars/DH_4004332 (accessed Oct 2007).
- 16. Masters C. MS patients welcome move to fund drugs. New Zealand Herald 2000; 30 Jun. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=106706 (accessed Oct 2007).
- 17. McNaughton H, Kayes N, McPherson K. Interferon beta, PHARMAC, and political directives: in the best interests of people with multiple sclerosis? N Z Med J 2006; 119: U1939.
- 18. Bailey F. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: betaferon. Question without notice, 10 Sep 1996. Canberra: Australian House of Representatives. http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/ (accessed Oct 2007).
- 19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of trastuzumab for breast cancer. Report TA34. London: NICE, 2002. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA34 (accessed Oct 2007).
- 20. Medicare Australia. Trastuzumab (Herceptin). 2007. http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/providers/programs_services/herceptin.shtml (accessed Oct 2007).
- 21. Hall WD, Ward R, Liauw WS, et al. Tailoring access to high cost, genetically targeted drugs. Assessment of real cost effectiveness, with data linked to individual health outcomes while protecting patient privacy, is an essential challenge we need to meet. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 607-608. <MJA full text>
- 22. Ministry of Health. The New Zealand Cancer Control Strategy. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2003. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/2462?Open (accessed Oct 2007).
- 23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Leukemia (chronic myeloid) — imatinib. Report TA 70. London: NICE, 2002. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA70 (accessed Oct 2007).
- 24. Annual report of Pharmaceutical Management Agency for the year ended 30 June 2003. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2003. http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/pdf/ARep03.pdf (accessed Oct 2007).
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.