Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Costs of paying higher prices for equivalent effects on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

Jonathan Karnon A C , Laura Edney A and Michael Sorich B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Level 7, 178 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Email: laura.edney@adelaide.edu.au

B School of Medicine, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. Email: michael.sorich@flinders.edu.au

C Corresponding author. Email: jonathan.karnon@adelaide.edu.au

Australian Health Review 41(1) 1-6 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15122
Submitted: 26 June 2015  Accepted: 1 February 2016   Published: 9 March 2016

Abstract

Objective The aims of the present study were to illustrate and discuss the effects of the non-maintenance of equivalent prices when the comparators of pharmaceuticals listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) on a cost-minimisation basis come off-patent and are subject to statutory price reductions, as well as further potential price reductions because of the effects of price disclosure.

Methods Service use, benefits paid, and price data were analysed for a selected sample of pharmaceuticals recommended for listing on a cost-minimisation basis between 2008 and 2011, and their comparators, to estimate the cost savings to the PBS of maintaining equivalent prices.

Results Potential cost savings for 12 pharmaceuticals, including alternative compounds and combination products across nine therapeutic groups, ranged from A$570 000 to A$40 million to April 2015. Potential savings increased significantly following recent amendments to the price disclosure process.

Conclusions Potential savings from maintaining equivalent prices for all pharmaceuticals listed on the PBS on a cost-minimisation basis could be over A$500 million per year. Actions to reduce these costs can be taken within existing policy frameworks, but legislative and political barriers may need to be addressed to minimise these costs, which are incurred by the taxpayer for no additional benefit.

What is known about the topic? Pharmaceuticals listed on the PBS must provide value for money. Many pharmaceuticals achieve this by demonstrating equal effectiveness to an already listed pharmaceutical and requesting the same price as this comparator; that is, listing on a cost-minimisation basis. When the comparator moves off-patent, the price of the still-patented pharmaceutical is protected, whereas the off-patent drug is subject to price disclosure and often steep price reductions.

What does this paper add? This paper adds to recent evidence on the costs to government of paying different prices for two or more pharmaceuticals that are equally effective. Between 2008 and 2011, the direct comparators for 68 pharmaceuticals listed on a cost-minimisation basis have moved onto the price disclosure list. Across 12 of these listings, the potential cost savings in the 10 months to April 2015 were A$73 million.

What are the implications for practitioners? The PBS costs the Australian government over A$9 billion per year. Annual savings over A$500 million per year could be achieved by maintaining cost-minimisation across equally effective pharmaceuticals. This would improve the efficiency of the PBS at no risk to patients. Legislation is required to remove the existing F1 and F2 categorisation of listed pharmaceuticals, but the proposed changes would remove the need for therapeutic group premiums and simplify the pricing of PBS items.


References

[1]  Clarke PM, Avery AB. Evaluating the costs and benefits of using combination therapies. Med J Aust 2014; 200 518–20.
Evaluating the costs and benefits of using combination therapies.CrossRef | 24835707PubMed |

[2]  Clarke P. Pharmaceuticals, pharmacists and profits: a health policy perspective. Aust Prescr 2014; 37 148–9.
Pharmaceuticals, pharmacists and profits: a health policy perspective.CrossRef |

[3]  Duckett S, Breadon P. Premium policy? Fixing the policy for switching drugs. Melbourne: Grattan Institute; 2015.

[4]  Babar Z, Vitry A. Differences in Australian and New Zealand medicines funding policies. Aust Prescr 2014; 37 150–1.
Differences in Australian and New Zealand medicines funding policies.CrossRef |

[5]  Australian Government Department of Health Quality Use of Medicines (QUM). Available at: http://www.health.gov.au.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/nmp-quality.htm [verified 25 June 2015].

[6]  Faunce T, Bai J, Nguyen D. Impact of the Australia–US Free Trade Agreement on Australian medicines regulation and prices. J Gene Med 2010; 7 18–29.
Impact of the Australia–US Free Trade Agreement on Australian medicines regulation and prices.CrossRef |

[7]  Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation. J Health Econ 2008; 27 1224–36.
Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation.CrossRef | 18619695PubMed |

[8]  Pekarsky BAK. The new drug reimbursement game: a regulator’s guide to playing and winning. Auckland: Springer; 2015.

[9]  Faunce TA. Reference pricing for pharmaceuticals: is the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement affecting Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? Med J Aust 2007; 187 240–2.
| 17564579PubMed |


Full Text PDF (13 KB) Export Citation Cited By (1)

View Altmetrics