Connect
MJA
MJA

Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand

James P Raftery
Med J Aust 2008; 188 (1): 26-28.
  • James P Raftery

  • Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Correspondence: raftery@soton.ac.uk

Acknowledgements: 

Thanks to Andrew Mitchell, who provided information on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Rachel Grocott, who provided information on the Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Neither is responsible for the views expressed in this article, which are those of the author alone.

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 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).

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.