ReviewPharmacoEconomics2018
The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessing Value for Money in Theranostic Nuclear Medicine: A Systematic Review.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping the landscape of managed entry agreements: a systematic review of global frameworks, system-level components, and implementation challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Real-World Outcomes of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma by Age and Sex: A National Population-Based Study.Targeted oncology · 2025Article
- Co-designing a Structured Expert Elicitation with Clinicians to Enhance Health Care Decision Making in Exercise Oncology.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- The value-for-money assessment and funding arrangements for high-priced drugs in an era of uncertainty: a comparative analysis of national health technology assessment agencies in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Federal Funding for Expensive Drugs for Rare Diseases: How Do We Pick and Choose?Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2024Article
- Comparative policy analysis of national rare disease funding policies in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2024Article
- An Industry Survey on Unmet Needs in South Korea's New Drug Listing System.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- Impact of a New Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Implementation on Cancer Formulary Decisions in Jordan.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Article
- How can we improve patients' access to new drugs under uncertainties? : South Korea's experience with risk sharing arrangements.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- A Review of Web-Based Tools for Value-of-Information Analysis.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Review
- Healthcare Funding Decisions and Real-World Benefits: Reducing Bias by Matching Untreated Patients.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Article
- Value of Information Analysis: Are We There Yet?PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Article
- The Potential for Early Health Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Decision-Making Comment on "Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling".International journal of health policy and management · 2021Article
- Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Review
- Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation of Outcome-Based Spread Payments for High-Cost, One-Shot Curative Therapies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2010, the Australian Government introduced the managed entry scheme (MES) to improve patient access to subsidised drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and enhance the quality of evidence provided to decision makers. The aim of this paper was to critically review the Australian MES experience. We performed a comprehensive review of publicly available Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee online documents from January 2010 to July 2017. Relevant information on each MES agreement was systematically extracted, including its rationale, the conditions that guided its implementation and its policy outcomes. We identified 11 drugs where an MES was considered. Most of the identified drugs (75%) were antineoplastic agents and the main uncertainty was the overall survival benefit. More than half of the MES proposals were made by sponsors and most of the schemes were considered after previous rejected/deferred submissions for reimbursement. An MES was not established in 8 of 11 drugs (73%) despite the high evidence uncertainty. Nevertheless, six of these eight drugs were listed after the sponsors reduced their prices. Three MESs were established and implemented by Deeds of Agreement. The three cases were concluded and the required data were submitted within the agreed time frames. The need for feasibility and value of an MES should be carefully considered by stakeholders before embarking on such an agreement. It is essential to engage major stakeholders, including patient representatives, in this process. The conditions governing MESs should be clear, transparent and balanced to address the expectations of various stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29478116What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.