澳大利亚高成本药物的资助和使用:以抗风湿病生物药物为例。

Christine Y Lu, Kenneth M Williams, Richard O Day
{"title":"澳大利亚高成本药物的资助和使用:以抗风湿病生物药物为例。","authors":"Christine Y Lu,&nbsp;Kenneth M Williams,&nbsp;Richard O Day","doi":"10.1186/1743-8462-4-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subsidised access to high-cost medicines in Australia is restricted under national programs (the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, RPBS) with a view to achieving cost-effective use. The aim of this study was to examine the use and associated government cost of biological agents for treating rheumatoid arthritis over the first two years of subsidy, and to compare these data to the predicted outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>National prescription and expenditure data for the biologicals, etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and anakinra were collected and analysed for the period August 2003 to July 2005. Dispensing data on biologicals sorted by the metropolitan, rural and remote zones and by prescriber major specialty were also examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 27,970 prescriptions for biologicals was reimbursed. The government expenditure was A$53.1 million, representing only 19% of that expected. Almost all prescriptions were reimbursed by the PBS (98%, A$52 million) and the remainder by the RPBS. Approximately 62% of the prescriptions were for concessional patients (A$32.9 million). There was considerable variability in the use of biologicals across Australian states and territories, usage roughly correlating with the per capita adjusted number of rheumatologists. The total number of prescriptions continued to increase over the study period. Etanercept was the most highly prescribed agent (74% by number of prescriptions), although its use was beginning to plateau. Use of adalimumab increased steadily. Use of infliximab and anakinra was considerably lower. The resultant health outcomes for individual patients are unknown. Prescribers from capital cities and other metropolitan centres provided a majority of prescriptions of biologicals (89%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The overall uptake of biologicals for treating rheumatoid arthritis over the first two years of PBS subsidy was considerably lower than expected. Long-term safety concerns and the expanded clinical uses of these drugs emphasise the need for evaluation. It is essential that there is comprehensive, ongoing analysis of utilisation data, associated expenditure and, importantly, patient outcomes in order to enhance accountability, efficiency and equity of policies that allocate substantial resources to subsidising national access to high-cost medicines.</p>","PeriodicalId":87170,"journal":{"name":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","volume":"4 ","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-4-2","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The funding and use of high-cost medicines in Australia: the example of anti-rheumatic biological medicines.\",\"authors\":\"Christine Y Lu,&nbsp;Kenneth M Williams,&nbsp;Richard O Day\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1743-8462-4-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subsidised access to high-cost medicines in Australia is restricted under national programs (the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, RPBS) with a view to achieving cost-effective use. The aim of this study was to examine the use and associated government cost of biological agents for treating rheumatoid arthritis over the first two years of subsidy, and to compare these data to the predicted outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>National prescription and expenditure data for the biologicals, etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and anakinra were collected and analysed for the period August 2003 to July 2005. Dispensing data on biologicals sorted by the metropolitan, rural and remote zones and by prescriber major specialty were also examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 27,970 prescriptions for biologicals was reimbursed. The government expenditure was A$53.1 million, representing only 19% of that expected. Almost all prescriptions were reimbursed by the PBS (98%, A$52 million) and the remainder by the RPBS. Approximately 62% of the prescriptions were for concessional patients (A$32.9 million). There was considerable variability in the use of biologicals across Australian states and territories, usage roughly correlating with the per capita adjusted number of rheumatologists. The total number of prescriptions continued to increase over the study period. Etanercept was the most highly prescribed agent (74% by number of prescriptions), although its use was beginning to plateau. Use of adalimumab increased steadily. Use of infliximab and anakinra was considerably lower. The resultant health outcomes for individual patients are unknown. Prescribers from capital cities and other metropolitan centres provided a majority of prescriptions of biologicals (89%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The overall uptake of biologicals for treating rheumatoid arthritis over the first two years of PBS subsidy was considerably lower than expected. Long-term safety concerns and the expanded clinical uses of these drugs emphasise the need for evaluation. It is essential that there is comprehensive, ongoing analysis of utilisation data, associated expenditure and, importantly, patient outcomes in order to enhance accountability, efficiency and equity of policies that allocate substantial resources to subsidising national access to high-cost medicines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-4-2\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-4-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-4-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

背景:在澳大利亚,根据国家计划(药品福利计划,PBS和遣返药品福利计划,RPBS),为了实现具有成本效益的使用,补贴获得高成本药品是受到限制的。本研究的目的是检查生物制剂在前两年治疗类风湿性关节炎的使用情况和相关的政府成本,并将这些数据与预测结果进行比较。方法:收集2003年8月至2005年7月生物制剂依那西普、英夫利昔单抗、阿达木单抗和阿那那单抗的全国处方和支出数据进行分析。按大都市、农村和偏远地区以及按处方者主要专业分类的生物制剂配药数据也进行了检查。结果:共报销27970张生物制剂处方。政府支出为5,310万澳元,仅为预期的19%。几乎所有的处方都由PBS报销(98%,5200万澳元),其余的由RPBS报销。大约62%的处方是针对优惠期患者的(3290万澳元)。在澳大利亚各州和地区,生物制剂的使用存在相当大的差异,使用情况大致与风湿病学家的人均调整数量相关。在研究期间,处方总数继续增加。依那西普是使用率最高的药物(占处方数量的74%),尽管其使用开始趋于平稳。阿达木单抗的使用稳步增加。英夫利昔单抗和阿那那的使用明显较低。个体患者的健康结果尚不清楚。来自首都城市和其他大都市中心的开处方者提供了大部分生物制剂处方(89%)。结论:在PBS补贴的前两年,治疗类风湿性关节炎的生物制剂的总体吸收量明显低于预期。这些药物的长期安全性问题和临床应用的扩大强调了评估的必要性。至关重要的是,必须对利用数据、相关支出以及(重要的)患者结果进行全面、持续的分析,以便加强分配大量资源以补贴国家获得高成本药物的政策的问责制、效率和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The funding and use of high-cost medicines in Australia: the example of anti-rheumatic biological medicines.

The funding and use of high-cost medicines in Australia: the example of anti-rheumatic biological medicines.

The funding and use of high-cost medicines in Australia: the example of anti-rheumatic biological medicines.

The funding and use of high-cost medicines in Australia: the example of anti-rheumatic biological medicines.

Background: Subsidised access to high-cost medicines in Australia is restricted under national programs (the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, RPBS) with a view to achieving cost-effective use. The aim of this study was to examine the use and associated government cost of biological agents for treating rheumatoid arthritis over the first two years of subsidy, and to compare these data to the predicted outcomes.

Methods: National prescription and expenditure data for the biologicals, etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and anakinra were collected and analysed for the period August 2003 to July 2005. Dispensing data on biologicals sorted by the metropolitan, rural and remote zones and by prescriber major specialty were also examined.

Results: A total of 27,970 prescriptions for biologicals was reimbursed. The government expenditure was A$53.1 million, representing only 19% of that expected. Almost all prescriptions were reimbursed by the PBS (98%, A$52 million) and the remainder by the RPBS. Approximately 62% of the prescriptions were for concessional patients (A$32.9 million). There was considerable variability in the use of biologicals across Australian states and territories, usage roughly correlating with the per capita adjusted number of rheumatologists. The total number of prescriptions continued to increase over the study period. Etanercept was the most highly prescribed agent (74% by number of prescriptions), although its use was beginning to plateau. Use of adalimumab increased steadily. Use of infliximab and anakinra was considerably lower. The resultant health outcomes for individual patients are unknown. Prescribers from capital cities and other metropolitan centres provided a majority of prescriptions of biologicals (89%).

Conclusion: The overall uptake of biologicals for treating rheumatoid arthritis over the first two years of PBS subsidy was considerably lower than expected. Long-term safety concerns and the expanded clinical uses of these drugs emphasise the need for evaluation. It is essential that there is comprehensive, ongoing analysis of utilisation data, associated expenditure and, importantly, patient outcomes in order to enhance accountability, efficiency and equity of policies that allocate substantial resources to subsidising national access to high-cost medicines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信