Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39182009›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2024

Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

Zachary Tirrell, Alicia Norman, Martin Hoyle, Sean Lybrand, Bonny Parkinson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zachary TirrellMacquarie University, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia. zachary.tirrell@hdr.mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0394-3090
Alicia NormanMacquarie University, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Martin HoyleMacquarie University, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Sean LybrandMacquarie University, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
Bonny ParkinsonMacquarie University, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPublished 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

methodsRelevant 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.

resultsWhile 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.

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAustraliaHumans

Identifiers

PMID39182009
PMCPMC11499440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.