The new draft changes to PBAC guidelines have been revealed, outlining some significant departures from the guide’s previous methodology. One of the key changes is a shift away from prioritising a cost-utility analysis of the medicine, to a more broad approach to economic evaluation. The guidelines state that various types of economic evaluation are “not necessarily mutually exclusive”. […]
The new draft changes to PBAC guidelines have been revealed, outlining some significant departures from the guide’s previous methodology.
One of the key changes is a shift away from prioritising a cost-utility analysis of the medicine, to a more broad approach to economic evaluation.
The guidelines state that various types of economic evaluation are “not necessarily mutually exclusive”.
“It may be appropriate to present more than one analysis to make a stronger case for cost-effectiveness (eg both [cost-effectiveness analysis] and [cost-utility analysis], or cost-consequences analysis and [cost-utility analysis],” it says.
A cost-benefit analyses should be avoided, according to the guidelines.
The PBAC draft guidelines, released late last Friday, will also change the way companies will need to evaluate their product against a comparator.
Instead of choosing a comparator that prescribers would most likely replace with the proposed therapy, the new guidelines ask stakeholders to justify the new medicine in comparison to the cheapest medicine available.
The Department of Health is seeking consultation from stakeholders until 5 April, and there will be an information session on 15 March for stakeholders to understand the changes made in the document.
There will be only a five-page limit for stakeholder responses to the draft guidelines.
The review was announced by the health minister a year ago, and contracted to the University of Adelaide for $533,000.
