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

Jane Robertson, Emily J. Walkom, David A. Henry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)192-199
Number of pages8
JournalAustralian Health Review
Volume33
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Advisory Committees
Health Expenditures
Negotiating
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Appointments and Schedules
Health

Cite this

@article{02515d3b28464e67a81991991f376220,
title = "Transparency in pricing arrangements for medicines listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme",
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.",
author = "Jane Robertson and Walkom, {Emily J.} and Henry, {David A.}",
year = "2009",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1071/AH090192",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "192--199",
journal = "Australia and New Zealand Health Policy",
issn = "1743-8462",
publisher = "CSIRO Publishing",
number = "2",

}

Transparency in pricing arrangements for medicines listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. / Robertson, Jane; Walkom, Emily J.; Henry, David A.

In: Australian Health Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, 05.2009, p. 192-199.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transparency in pricing arrangements for medicines listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

AU - Robertson, Jane

AU - Walkom, Emily J.

AU - Henry, David A.

PY - 2009/5

Y1 - 2009/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=66749112383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1071/AH090192

DO - 10.1071/AH090192

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 192

EP - 199

JO - Australia and New Zealand Health Policy

JF - Australia and New Zealand Health Policy

SN - 1743-8462

IS - 2

ER -