Using Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness to Make Drug Coverage Decisions: A Comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada | Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Canadian Institute for Health Information.  Drug Expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2006. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2007
2.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.  CADTH Presentation on the Common Drug Review to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2007
3.
Duerden M, Gogna N, Godman B, Eden K, Mallinson M, Sullivan N. Current national initiatives and policies to control drug costs in Europe: UK perspective.  J Ambul Care Manage. 2004;27(2):132-13815069991PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
 Health expenditure Australia 2006-07 [Health and welfare expenditure series No. 35]. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10659. Accessed September 10, 2009
5.
Poisal JA. Medicaid drugs.  Health Care Financ Rev. 2004;25(3):1-415229992PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Sales MM, Cunningham FE, Glassman PA, Valentino MA, Good CB. Pharmacy benefits management in the Veterans Health Administration: 1995 to 2003.  Am J Manag Care. 2005;11(2):104-11215726858PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
 The budget and economic outlook: fiscal years 2009 to 2019. Congressional Budget Office. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/toc.htm. Accessed September 3, 2009
8.
Collier J. Parliamentary review asks NICE to do better still.  BMJ. 2008;336(7635):56-5718187699PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Miners AH, Garau M, Fidan D, Fischer AJ. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study.  BMJ. 2005;330(7482):6515601681PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C,  et al.  Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(2):337-34716522575PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Steinbrook R. Saying no isn't NICE: the travails of Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(19):1977-198118987366PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004.  Med Decis Making. 2008;28(5):713-72218378939PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Henry DA, Hill SR, Harris A. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.  JAMA. 2005;294(20):2630-263216304078PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.  JAMA. 2000;283(16):2116-212110791503PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Tierney M, Manns B.Members of the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee.  Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review.  CMAJ. 2008;178(4):432-43518268271PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
McMahon M, Morgan S, Mitton C. The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada?  Health Policy. 2006;77(3):339-35116214257PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Aspinal SL, Good CB, Glassman PA, Valentino MA. The evolving use of cost-effectiveness analysis in formulary management within the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Med Care. 2005;43(7 suppl):20-2616056005PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Aaron HJ. Waste, we know you are out there.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(18):1865-186718971487PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Fuchs VR. Three “inconvenient truths” about health care.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1749-175118946059PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
American College of Physicians.  Information on cost-effectiveness: an essential product of a national comparative effectiveness program.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):956-96118483128PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Wilensky GR. Cost-effectiveness information: yes, it's important, but keep it separate, please!  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):967-96818483126PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
 Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008, S 3408, 110th Cong, 2nd Session 2008 
23.
Alexander GC, Stafford RS. Does comparative effectiveness have a comparative edge?  JAMA. 2009;301(23):2488-249019531789PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? a binary choice analysis.  Health Econ. 2004;13(5):437-45215127424PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
 Health care system. Health Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/index-eng.php. Accessed November 5, 2008
26.
Manns BJ, Mendelssohn DC, Taub KJ. The economics of end-stage renal disease care in Canada: incentives and impact on delivery of care.  Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2007;7(2-3):149-16917641968PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
 National Health Act 1953. Australian Government, Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200401580?OpenDocument. Accessed September 3, 2009
28.
American College of Rheumatology Committee to Reevaluate Improvement Criteria.  A proposed revision to the ACR20: the hybrid measure of American College of Rheumatology response.  Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(2):193-20217330293PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Psaty BM, Lumley T. Surrogate end points and FDA approval: a tale of 2 lipid-altering drugs.  JAMA. 2008;299(12):1474-147618364491PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?  Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605-6138815760PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Manns BJ, Owen WF Jr, Winkelmayer WC, Devereaux PJ, Tonelli M. Surrogate markers in clinical studies: problems solved or created?  Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48(1):159-16616797400PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD,  et al.  Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease.  JAMA. 1999;282(8):786-79010463718PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Temple R. Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs?  JAMA. 1999;282(8):790-79510463719PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
 Potential NCD (national coverage determination) topics. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/ncpc_view_document.asp?id=19
35.
Hill S, Henry D, Mitchell A. Problems in pharmacoeconomic analyses.  JAMA. 2000;284(15):1922-192411035881PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, Rochaix L, Sawicki PT, Nasser M, Xerri B. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries.  Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):339-36719523121PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
 Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). PBS Publications. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacguidelines-index. Accessed September 14, 2009
38.
 International pharmaceutical price differences: research report [2001]. Australian Government. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/pbsprices/docs/finalreport. Accessed September 3, 2009
39.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.  First Report of the Health Committee 2007-2008.  London, United Kingdom: Stationary Office; 2008
40.
Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.  J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(2):73-7917407655PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Contribution
October 7, 2009

Using Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness to Make Drug Coverage Decisions: A Comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Medicine (Drs Clement and Manns) and Community Health Sciences (Dr Manns), Libin Cardiovascular Institute (Dr Manns), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (Mr Harris, Mss Li and Yong); and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Ms Lee).

JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437-1443. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1409
Abstract

Context National public insurance for drugs is often based on evidence of comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This study describes how that evidence has been used across 3 jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, and Britain) that have been at the forefront of evidence-based coverage internationally.

Objectives To describe how clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence is used in coverage decisions both within and across jurisdictions and to identify common issues in the process of evidence-based coverage.

Design, Setting, and Participants Descriptive analysis of retrospective data from the Common Drug Review (CDR) of Canada, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in Britain, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) of Australia. All publicly available information as of December 31, 2008, was gathered from each committee's Web site (data set begins in January 2004 [CDR], February 2001 [NICE], and July 2005 [PBAC]).

Main Outcome Measure Listing recommendations for each drug by disease indication.

Results NICE recommended 87.4% (174/199) of submissions for listing compared with a listing rate of 49.6% (60/121) and 54.3% (153/282) for the CDR and PBAC, respectively. Significant uncertainty around clinical effectiveness, typically resulting from inadequate study design or the use of inappropriate comparators and unvalidated surrogate end points, was identified as a key issue in coverage decisions. Recommendations varied considerably across countries, possibly because of differences in the medications reviewed; different agency processes, including the willingness to negotiate on price; and the approach to “me too” drugs. The data suggest that the 3 agencies make recommendations that are consistent with evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness but that other factors are often important.

Conclusions NICE, PBAC, and CDR face common issues with respect to the quality and strength of the experimental evidence in support of a clinically meaningful effect. However, comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, along with other relevant factors, can be used by national agencies to support drug decision making. The results of the evaluation process in different countries are influenced by the context, agency processes, ability to engage in price negotiation, and perhaps differences in social values.

×