Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Cancer Drugs Less Likely to be Recommended for Listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 February 2011

Abstract

Background: The hurdle of cost effectiveness for the selection and reimbursement of drugs in Australia limits access to new medicines based on an assessment of cost relative to clinical benefit. Those drugs that are expensive and provide modest benefits will be less likely to receive a government price subsidy. There is concern that the cost-effectiveness hurdle will limit access to new cancer treatments because of their high costs and modest benefits.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that Ceteris paribus, cancer drugs are less likely to receive a recommendation for reimbursement on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) than non-cancer drugs.

Methods: We reviewed public summary documents (PSDs) on all major submissions considered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) from July 2005 to March 2008. Each PSD includes summary information on the clinical, economic and utilization considerations of the PBAC in arriving at a recommendation. A total of 227 PSDs were reviewed, from which 243 PBAC recommendations were identified.

Logistic regression was used to determine the effects of drug type (cancer vs non-cancer) and other potentially confounding variables on the outcome of PBS approval versus non-approval.

Results: There were 243 PBAC recommendations in 227 published PSDs: 108 for rejection (44%), 10 deferrals (4%) and 125 (51%) recommendations for listing. Recommendations for listing were made somewhat more often for non-cancer drugs than for cancer drugs: 104/191 (54%) versus 21/52 (40%), respectively; p = 0.07.

Based on the results for univariable analyses, there is evidence that four variables have some association (p < 0.25) with PBAC approval, but only type of application, economic modelling and estimated cost to the PBS remained statistically significant at p < 0.05 in the multivariable model. No interaction terms were statistically significant.

Cancer drug submissions tend to have a modelled economic evaluation and have a higher cost per QALY than non-cancer drugs (29% vs 15% of cancer and non-cancer drugs, respectively had a reported modelled cost per QALY of more than Australian dollars [$A]45 000; p < 0.001). Submissions that include a modelled economic evaluation and have a higher cost per QALY get approved less often than submissions without an economic modelling (p = 0.01).

However, after adjusting for economic modelling, there is no statistical difference between cancer and non-cancer drugs in terms of gaining recommendation for PBS listing.

Conclusion: The PBAC applies decision criteria equitably to cancer and noncancer drugs, in that cancer drugs are neither favoured nor disadvantaged but they are more expensive and target a smaller population than non-cancer drugs. Further debate and research is needed to determine society’s willingness to pay for a QALY and whether this differs between drugs for cancer and other indications or for interventions that differ on criteria other than cost effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lopert R. Evidence-based decision making within Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme [Commonwealth Fund publication July 2009; online]. Available from URL: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2009/Jul/Decision-Making-Within-Australia.aspx [Accessed 2009 Sep 12]

  2. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.3. Canberra (ACT): Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacguidelines-index [Accessed 2009 Jan 3]

    Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority annual report for the year ended 30 June 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pricing-pbparpt.htm [Accessed 2009 Jan 3]

  4. Thomson J, Schofield L, Mileshkin I, et al. Do oncologists discuss expensive anti-cancer drugs with their patients? Ann Oncol 2006; 17: 702–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. MacKenzie R, Chapman S, Salkeld G, et al. Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: application of the rule of rescue? J R Soc Med 2008; 101: 1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Fact sheets: listing of herceptin on the PBS [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/herceptin-govtdecision.htm [Accessed 2009 Sep 30]

  7. Analysis: trends in time to PBS listing. Pharma in Focus 2009 Sep 713 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmainfocus.com.au/FeaturePrint.asp?Featureid=328 [Accessed 2009 Sep 14]

  8. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (19911996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris A, Hill S, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 19942004. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 713–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCabe C, Bergmann L, Bosanquet N, et al. Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: a current, multidisciplinary perspective. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (3): 403–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jefford M, Savulescu J, Thomson J, et al. Medical paternalism and expensive unsubsidised drugs. BMJ 2005 Nov; 331: 1075–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim P. Cost of cancer care: the patient perspective. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jan; 25 (2): 228–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schrag D, Hanger M. Medical oncologists’ views on communicating with patients about chemotherapy costs: a pilot survey. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (2): 233–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. PBAC outcomes and public summary documents [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbac-outcomes-and-public-summary-documents [Accessed 2008 Sep 25]

  15. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme quarterly facts sheet: 1st quarter (JanuaryMarch) 2008. Medicines Australia [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medicinesaustralia.com.au/pages/images/PBS-Quarterly-facts-1st-Quarter-2008-revised.pdf [Accessed 2009 Jun 5]

  17. Shih YC, Halpern MT. Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why and what does it mean? CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58 (4): 231–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Meropol N, Schulman K. Cost of cancer care: issues and implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (2): 180–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Low E. Many new cancer drugs in the United Kingdomare facing negative NICE rulings. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (18): 2635–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meropol N, Schulman K. Perspectives on the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (2): 169–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Drummond MF, Mason AR. In reply: European perspective on the costs and cost effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (18): 2637–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. A NICE adaptation [editorial]. Lancet 2009; 373 (9660): 272

    Google Scholar 

  23. Towse A, Raftery J. Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? BMJ 2009; 338: 268–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising treatments which may extend life, at the end of life. London: NICE, 2009 Jul [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/endoflifetreatments.jsp? [Accessed 2009 Sep 24]

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chabot I, LeLorier J, Blackstein M. The challenge of conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in oncology using crossover trials: the example of sunitinib for gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44 (7): 972–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

Lesley Chim is employed by AstraZeneca Australia and is enrolled in a PhD degree with the School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Professor Glenn Salkeld has received an honorarium from Pfizer for teaching in a short course. Associate Professor Martin Stockler has received research grants in aid and honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Novartis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Lesley Chim, Patrick J. Kelly, Glenn Salkeld & Martin R. Stockler

  2. AstraZeneca Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Lesley Chim

  3. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Martin R. Stockler

  4. Sydney Cancer Centre — RPA and Concord Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Martin R. Stockler

Authors
  1. Lesley Chim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick J. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Glenn Salkeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin R. Stockler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesley Chim.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11585540-000000000-00000.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chim, L., Kelly, P.J., Salkeld, G. et al. Are Cancer Drugs Less Likely to be Recommended for Listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?. Pharmacoeconomics 28, 463–475 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11533000-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11533000-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation