Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Zachary Tirrell, Alicia Norman, Martin Hoyle, Sean Lybrand, Bonny Parkinson
{"title":"Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.","authors":"Zachary Tirrell, Alicia Norman, Martin Hoyle, Sean Lybrand, Bonny Parkinson","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01420-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Published literature has levied criticism against the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach to economic evaluation over the past two decades, with multiple papers declaring its 'death'. However, since introducing the requirements for economic evaluations as part of health technology (HTA) decision-making in 1992, the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach has been widely used to inform recommendations about the public subsidy of medicines in Australia. This research aimed to highlight the breadth of use of CMA in Australia and assess the influence of preconditions for the approach on subsidy recommendations METHODS: Relevant information was extracted from Public Summary Documents of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) meetings in Australia considering submissions for the subsidy of medicines that included a CMA and were assessed between July 2005 and December 2022. A generalised linear model was used to explore the relationship between whether medicines were recommended and variables that reflected the primary preconditions for using CMA set out in the published PBAC Methodology Guidelines. Other control variables were selected through the Bolasso Method. Subgroup analysis was undertaken which replicated this modelling process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While the potential for inferior safety or efficacy reduced the likelihood of recommendation (p < 0.01), the effect sizes suggest that the requirements for CMA were not requisite for recommendation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Australian practice of CMA does not strictly align with the PBAC Methodology Guidelines and the theoretically appropriate application of CMA. However, within the confines of a deliberative HTA decision-making process that balances values and judgement with available evidence, this may be considered acceptable, particularly if stakeholders consider the current approach delivers sufficient clarity of process and enables patients to access medicines at an affordable cost.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01420-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Published literature has levied criticism against the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach to economic evaluation over the past two decades, with multiple papers declaring its 'death'. However, since introducing the requirements for economic evaluations as part of health technology (HTA) decision-making in 1992, the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach has been widely used to inform recommendations about the public subsidy of medicines in Australia. This research aimed to highlight the breadth of use of CMA in Australia and assess the influence of preconditions for the approach on subsidy recommendations METHODS: Relevant information was extracted from Public Summary Documents of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) meetings in Australia considering submissions for the subsidy of medicines that included a CMA and were assessed between July 2005 and December 2022. A generalised linear model was used to explore the relationship between whether medicines were recommended and variables that reflected the primary preconditions for using CMA set out in the published PBAC Methodology Guidelines. Other control variables were selected through the Bolasso Method. Subgroup analysis was undertaken which replicated this modelling process.

Results: While the potential for inferior safety or efficacy reduced the likelihood of recommendation (p < 0.01), the effect sizes suggest that the requirements for CMA were not requisite for recommendation.

Conclusion: The Australian practice of CMA does not strictly align with the PBAC Methodology Guidelines and the theoretically appropriate application of CMA. However, within the confines of a deliberative HTA decision-making process that balances values and judgement with available evidence, this may be considered acceptable, particularly if stakeholders consider the current approach delivers sufficient clarity of process and enables patients to access medicines at an affordable cost.

Abstract Image

唤醒你的亡灵:向澳大利亚药品福利咨询委员会提交的健康技术评估报告中的成本最小化方法回顾》(Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee)。
目的:在过去的二十年中,已发表的文献对经济评估中的成本最小化分析(CMA)方法提出了批评,多篇论文宣布其 "死亡"。然而,自 1992 年将经济评估要求作为卫生技术(HTA)决策的一部分引入以来,成本最小化分析(CMA)方法已被广泛用于为澳大利亚的药品公共补贴建议提供信息。本研究旨在强调成本最小化分析法在澳大利亚的广泛应用,并评估该方法的前提条件对补贴建议的影响 方法:从澳大利亚药品利益咨询委员会(PBAC)会议的公共摘要文件中提取相关信息,这些会议审议了 2005 年 7 月至 2022 年 12 月期间提交的包含成本最小化分析法的药品补贴申请。采用广义线性模型来探讨是否推荐药品与反映已发布的《PBAC 方法指南》中规定的使用 CMA 的主要前提条件的变量之间的关系。其他控制变量是通过博拉索法选出的。在复制这一建模过程的基础上进行了分组分析:结果:虽然安全性或疗效较差的可能性降低了推荐的可能性(p 结论:澳大利亚的 CMA 实践并没有降低推荐的可能性:澳大利亚的 CMA 实践并不严格符合 PBAC 方法指南以及理论上 CMA 的适当应用。不过,在兼顾价值观、判断力与现有证据的 HTA 决策过程中,这种做法是可以接受的,尤其是如果利益相关者认为目前的方法能够提供足够清晰的过程,并使患者能够以可承受的成本获得药品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信