Advertisement
Schwerpunkt| Volume 108, ISSUE 7, P360-366, 2014

Download started.

Ok

Revolution then evolution: The advance of health economic evaluation in Australia

  • Author Footnotes
    1 LWC Health Pty Ltd, 10 Hopegood Place, Garran ACT 2605, Australia
    Ruth Lopert
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Dr Ruth Lopert, Director, LWC Health Pty Ltd and Adjunct Professor, Department of Health Policy, George Washington University, Washington DC.
    Footnotes
    1 LWC Health Pty Ltd, 10 Hopegood Place, Garran ACT 2605, Australia
    Affiliations
    LWC Health Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia

    Department of Health Policy, George Washington University, Washington DC
    Search for articles by this author
  • Rosalie Viney
    Affiliations
    Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology, Sydney and Chair, Economics Subcommittee, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 LWC Health Pty Ltd, 10 Hopegood Place, Garran ACT 2605, Australia
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2014.08.020
Revolution then evolution: The advance of health economic evaluation in Australia
Previous ArticleWhat is the contribution of health economic evaluations to decision-making in health care? Experiences from 7 selected countries
Next ArticleHealth economic evaluation in England

      Summary

      All governments face immense challenges in providing affordable healthcare for their citizens, and the diffusion of novel health technologies is a key driver of growth in expenditure for many. Although important methodological and process variations exist around the world, health economic evaluation is increasingly seen as an important tool to support decision-making around the introduction of new health technologies, interventions and programmes in countries of varying stages of economic development. In Australia, the assessment of the comparative cost-effectiveness of new medicines proposed for subsidy under the country's national drug subsidy programme, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, was introduced in the late 1980s and became mandatory in 1993, making Australia the first country to introduce such a requirement nationally. Since then the use of health economic evaluation has expanded and been applied to support decision-making across a broader range of health technologies, as well as to programmes in public health.

      Zusammenfassung

      Weltweit sehen sich Regierungen damit konfrontiert, ihren Bürgern eine bezahlbare Gesundheitsversorgung sichern zu müssen. Einen Schlüsselfaktor für die Ausgabensteigerung stellen insbesondere neuartige Therapien dar. Auch wenn es zwischen den Ländern Unterschiede in den Methoden und Prozessen gibt, wie man zu Erstattungsentscheidungen kommt, so wird doch die Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung mehr und mehr als wichtiges Instrument bei der Entscheidungsfindung um neue Therapieformen angesehen. Als Kriterium, ob ein neues Arzneimittel in das Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, die Liste der zu erstattenden Arzneimittel, aufgenommen werden soll, wurde die Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung gegen Ende der 1980er-Jahre in Australien eingeführt. 1993 wurde sie verpflichtend. Damit ist Australien das erste Land, das eine solche Anforderung auf nationaler Ebene eingeführt hat. Seitdem wurde die Nutzung von Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertungen auch auf Entscheidungen zu nichtmedikamentösen Gesundheitstechnologien und auch auf Public-Health-Interventionen ausgeweitet.

      Keywords

      Schlüsselwörter

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Boxall A.-M.
        • Gillespie J.
        Making Medicare: The politics of universal health care in Australia.
        UNSW Press, 2013
        View in Article
        • Lopert R.
        Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
        Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009; 60: 1-13
        View in Article

      3. Australien Institute of Health and Welfare. Health Report. In: Australia's Health 2012. Canberra: AIHW; 2012. S. 485.

        View in Article

      4. OECD. Health at a Glance 2013. OECD Publishing; 2013. (OECD Indicators). Available: .

        View in Article
        • Deeble J.S.
        The Costs and Sources of Finance of Australian Health Services*.
        Economic Record. 1967; 43: 518-543
        View in Article
        • Scotton R.B.
        Voluntary Insurance and the Incidence of Hospital Costs*.
        Australian Economic Papers. 1967; 6: 171-191
        View in Article
        • Drummond M.F.
        • Smith C.S.
        • Hailey D.M.
        Maximising the impact of health technology assessment: the Australian case.
        National Centre for Health Program Evaluation Melbourne, 1991
        View in Article
        • Sloan C.
        A history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 1947–1992.
        Department of Human Services and Health, 1995
        View in Article

      9. Australasian Legal Information Institute. National Health Act 1953, S.101 [online]. Available: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/%20consol_act/nha1953147/s101.html/, accessed: 11.06.2014.

        View in Article
        • Mitchell A.S.
        • Viney R.
        Meeting the information needs of a national drug payer: aspirations of the guidelines from Australia.
        Drug Development Research. 2010; 71: 463-469
        View in Article

      11. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013. Available: http://www.pbac.pbs.gov.au/content/information/printable-files/pbacg-book.pdf.

        View in Article
        • Harris A.H.
        • Hill S.R.
        • Chin G.
        • Li J.J.
        • 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: 713-722
        View in Article

      13. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine, injection, 0.5 mL, Gardasil [online]. 02.03.2007. Available: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2006-11/pbac-psd-gardasil-nov06, accessed: 11.06.2014.

        View in Article
        • Scuffham P.A.
        • Whitty J.A.
        • Mitchell A.
        • Viney R.
        The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26: 297-310
        View in Article

      15. Chalkidou K, Lopert R, Gerber A. Paying for “End-of-Life” Drugs in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom: Balancing Policy, Pragmatism, and Societal Values [online]. Available: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/Jan/Paying-for-End-of-Life-Drugs.aspx, accessed: 11.06.2014.

        View in Article

      16. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation. Extended Medicare Safety Net Review Report 2009. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health & Ageing; 2009. Available: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Review_%20Extended_Medicare_Safety_Net/$File/ExtendedMedicareSafetyNetReview.pdf.

        View in Article

      17. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation. Extended Medicare Safety Net Review of Capping Arrangements Report 2011. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia 2011; 2011. (volume 11.06.2014). Available: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/2011_Review_Extended_Medicare_Safety_Net/$File/Final%20Report%20-%20Review%20of%20EMSN%20benefit%20capping%20June%202011.pdf.

        View in Article
        • Carter R.
        • Glasziou P.
        • van Oortmarssen G.
        • de Koning H.
        • Stevenson C.
        • Salkeld G.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening in Australia.
        Aust J Public Health. 1993; 17: 42-50
        View in Article
        • Gerard K.
        • Salkeld G.
        • Hall J.
        Counting the costs of mammography screening: first year results from the Sydney study.
        Med J Aust. 1990; 152 (9–71): 466
        View in Article
        • Hall J.
        • Gerard K.
        • Salkeld G.
        • Richardson J.
        A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia.
        Soc Sci Med. 1992; 34: 993-1004
        View in Article

      21. Medical Services Advisory Committee. National Cervical Screening Program Renewal: Effectiveness modelling and economic evaluation in the Australian setting [online]. Nov. 2013. Available: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/754127911763F571CA257B8A001ADDC5/$File/Renewal%20Economic%20Evaluation.pdf, accessed: 12.06.2014.

        View in Article
        • Salkeld G.
        • Young G.
        • Irwig L.
        • Haas M.
        • Glasziou P.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening by faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer in Australia.
        Aust N Z J Public Health. 1996; 20: 138-143
        View in Article
        • Flitcroft K.L.
        • Salkeld G.P.
        • Gillespie J.A.
        • Trevena L.J.
        • Irwig L.M.
        Fifteen years of bowel cancer screening policy in Australia: putting evidence into practice?.
        Med J Aust. 2010; 193: 37-42
        View in Article

      Article info

      Publication history

      Accepted: August 28, 2014
      Received in revised form: August 26, 2014
      Received: June 16, 2014

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2014.08.020

      Copyright

      © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect

      The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the Cookie Preference Center for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties.


      RELX