Literature DB >> 19563308

Transparency in pricing arrangements for medicines listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Jane Robertson1, Emily J Walkom, David A Henry.   

Abstract

Australia's system for assessing the cost-effectiveness of drugs for listing under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is recognised internationally. A variety of mechanisms, such as evidence-based rules for determining eligibility for initial or continuing subsidy, price-volume agreements, rebates, and caps on government expenditure are used to contain PBS expenditures. In this paper we assess the extent of use of special pricing arrangements in Australia and how and where they are communicated to health professionals and the community. We searched publicly available documents published by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority (PBPA). We found 73 medicines where special pricing arrangements had been applied and where prices appearing on the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits might differ from those considered to be "cost-effective" by the PBAC. Reporting of these special pricing agreements was inconsistent and generally non-transparent. In some, the lack of transparency may have reflected the desire of manufacturers to disguise the true negotiated price, lest it weaken their negotiation position in other jurisdictions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19563308     DOI: 10.1071/ah090192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust Health Rev        ISSN: 0156-5788            Impact factor:   1.990


  9 in total

1.  International variability in the reimbursement of cancer drugs by publically funded drug programs.

Authors:  P K Cheema; S Gavura; M Migus; B Godman; L Yeung; M E Trudeau
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Use of product listing agreements by Canadian provincial drug benefit plans.

Authors:  Steven G Morgan; Melissa K Friesen; Paige A Thomson; Jamie R Daw
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2013-05

3.  Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Peter Ghijben; Yuanyuan Gu; Emily Lancsar; Silva Zavarsek
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers.

Authors:  Jakub Adamski; Brian Godman; Gabriella Ofierska-Sujkowska; Bogusława Osińska; Harald Herholz; Kamila Wendykowska; Ott Laius; Saira Jan; Catherine Sermet; Corrine Zara; Marija Kalaba; Roland Gustafsson; Kristina Garuolienè; Alan Haycox; Silvio Garattini; Lars L Gustafsson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Abstracts from the 3rd International PPRI Conference 2015: Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies: Challenges Beyond the Financial Crisis.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2015-10-05

6.  Patient access schemes in Asia-pacific markets: current experience and future potential.

Authors:  Christine Y Lu; Caitlin Lupton; Shana Rakowsky; Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Anita K Wagner
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2015-02-16

7.  Access to new cancer medicines in Australia: dispelling the myths and informing a public debate.

Authors:  Agnes Vitry; Barbara Mintzes; Wendy Lipworth
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2016-04-07

8.  Discounts and rebates granted to public payers for medicines in European countries.

Authors:  Sabine Vogler; Nina Zimmermann; Claudia Habl; Jutta Piessnegger; Anna Bucsics
Journal:  South Med Rev       Date:  2012-07-23

9.  Is there variation in private payor payments to cancer surgeons? A cross-sectional study in the USA.

Authors:  Tasce Bongiovanni; Simon P Kim; Anthony Kim; Brigid Killelea; Cary Gross
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-10-05       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.