Literature DB >> 18205559

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

James P Raftery1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18205559     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01500.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  17 in total

1.  Common Drug Review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations?

Authors:  Angela Rocchi; Elizabeth Miller; Robert B Hopkins; Ron Goeree
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  The cost-effectiveness of biopharmaceuticals: a look at the evidence.

Authors:  Andrew W Wilson; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 5.857

Review 3.  Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Deborah Marshall; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different.

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Donald J Philippon; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Aaron N Winn; Donatus U Ekwueme; Gery P Guy; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Estimating the Reference Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for the Australian Health System.

Authors:  Laura Catherine Edney; Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Terence Chai Cheng; Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology.

Authors:  Dan Greenberg; Craig Earle; Chi-Hui Fang; Adi Eldar-Lissai; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  A 3-dimensional view of access to licensed and subsidized medicines under single-payer systems in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Authors:  Rajan Ragupathy; Katri Aaltonen; June Tordoff; Pauline Norris; David Reith
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Coauthorship and institutional collaborations on cost-effectiveness analyses: a systematic network analysis.

Authors:  Ferrán Catalá-López; Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo; Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent; Manuel Ridao; Máxima Bolaños; Anna García-Altés; Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Salvador Peiró
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Medication use in a large international sample of people with multiple sclerosis: associations with quality of life, relapse rate and disability.

Authors:  George A Jelinek; Tracey J Weiland; Emily J Hadgkiss; Claudia H Marck; Naresh Pereira; Dania M van der Meer
Journal:  Neurol Res       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 2.448

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.