Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
- PMID: 39182009
- PMCID: PMC11499440
- DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01420-9
Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
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.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
A.N., M.H., and B.P. are evaluators of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for the Australian Government. S.L. is a full-time employee of Amgen Inc. The views expressed are the authors’ and do not reflect the views of the PBAC, the Australian Government, or Amgen Inc. Z.T. has no (non-funding) conflicts of interest to declare.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(6):463-75. doi: 10.2165/11533000-000000000-00000. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010. PMID: 20465315
-
Health Technology Assessment in Australia: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Medical Services Advisory Committee.Value Health Reg Issues. 2021 May;24:6-11. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2020.09.001. Epub 2021 Jan 9. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021. PMID: 33429153
-
Analysis of PBAC submissions and outcomes for medicines (2010-2018).Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Jun;36(3):224-231. doi: 10.1017/S026646232000029X. Epub 2020 Jun 11. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020. PMID: 32524923
-
How are Child-Specific Utility Instruments Used in Decision Making in Australia? A Review of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Public Summary Documents.Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 Feb;40(2):157-182. doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01107-5. Epub 2021 Nov 5. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022. PMID: 34738210 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Justifying the source of external comparators in single-arm oncology health technology submissions: a review of NICE and PBAC assessments.J Comp Eff Res. 2024 Feb;13(2):e230140. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0140. Epub 2024 Jan 4. J Comp Eff Res. 2024. PMID: 38174576 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Cost Comparisons in NICE Technology Appraisals: An External Assessment Group Perspective.Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Jul 23. doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01522-y. Online ahead of print. Pharmacoeconomics. 2025. PMID: 40699293 No abstract available.
References
-
- Charlton V et al. We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment. Health Econ Policy Law. 2023:1–21. - PubMed
-
- Australian Government Department of Health, Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 2016: Canberra.
-
- Jarrow RA. Risk management models: construction, testing, usage. J Deriv. 2011;18(4):89–98.
-
- O’Brien BJ, Briggs AH. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11(6):455–68. - PubMed
-
- Drummond MF. Studies in economic appraisal in health care. 1981.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous