Using evidence to set priorities in health: an analysis of decisions of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Australia has pioneered the use of rigorous clinical and economic evidence in the evaluation of drugs prior to funding on our nationally subsidised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In the ten years since the introduction of the requirement that drugs demonstrate cost effectiveness prior to subsidy being granted there has been no formal independent evaluation of the system to assess its performance. This project will examine the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in the last decade and consider the factors that explain those decisions. At times it has been asserted that those decisions have been arbitrary or based on inappropriate considerations such as the financial cost to government or politics of the day rather than the value for money of the drug in question. We will examine the reasons behind the decisions against the objectives of providing access to life enhancing medicines in a cost effective manner. We will look at what are the key determinants of whether a drug is recommended for listing on the PBS or is rejected. A key focus will be on whether those determinants could be described as legitimate in terms of their consistency with the objectives of the scheme. For example whether the main cause of rejection is a lack of high quality evidence on effectiveness- cost effectiveness or simply because of factors such as the high financial cost to government. The project will create a database of all submissions to the PBAC 1992-2004 that will allow us to explore a number of questions about the effectiveness of the decision making process in using evidence on effectiveness and costs in health more broadly as well as those specific to the PBS. In highlighting some of the problems with the evidence and its interpretation the overall aim is to improve the quality of the decision making process in the future.