Top

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

Published in:

01-12-2011 | Commentary

Hospital Drug and Therapeutics Committees in Australia: is there a role for economic evaluation at the institutional level?

Author: Gisselle Gallego

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy | Issue 6/2011

Abstract

Decisions about spending on medicines occur at different levels in the Australian health care system. This commentary describes the role of economic evaluation at the institutional (public hospital) level. In contrast to the decisions taken at the level of Federal subsidy (listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) formal pharmacoeonomic data analyses are usually not available, and arguably often not relevant to decision making within the public hospital setting. Future research is needed to develop and explore models of best practice and how to incorporate pharmacoeconomic evidence into local decisions.

Salkeld G, Mitchell A, Hill S. Pharmaceuticals. In: Mooney G, Scotton R, editors. Economics and Australian health policy. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 1999. p. 115–36.

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia. Canberra 2009.

Gallego G, Taylor SJ, Brien JA. Provision of pharmaceuticals in Australian hospitals: equity of access? Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(2):47–50.PubMedCrossRef

Gallego G, Taylor SJ, Brien JA. Funding and access to high cost medicines in public hospitals in Australia: decision-makers’ perspectives. Health Policy. 2009;92(1):27–34.PubMedCrossRef

Holloway K, Green T. Drug and Therapeutics Committees—a practical guide (WHO/EDM/PAR/2004.1). Geneva: World Health Organization 2003.

Tan EL, Day RO, Brien JA. Prioritising Drug and Therapeutics Committee (DTC) decisions: a national survey. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(2):90–6.PubMedCrossRef

Sansom L. The subsidy of pharmaceuticals in Australia: processes and challenges. Aust Health Rev. 2004;28(2):194–205.PubMedCrossRef

Weekes LM, Brooks C. Drug and Therapeutics Committees in Australia: expected and actual performance. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;42(5):551–7.PubMed

Van Gool K, Gallego G, Haas M, Hall J, Viney R, RW. Incorporating economic evidence into cancer care: searching for the missing link, CHERE Working Paper 2007/3. Sydney: CHERE 2007.

10.

Cancer Institute New South Wales (NSW). Review of Ambulatory/Outpatient Chemotherapy and Haematology Services in New South Wales 2005. [cited 31 May 2007]; Available from: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/cancer_inst/profes/ambulatory_care.html.

11.

Editorial Executive Committee. Transparency—in the eye of the beholder. Aust Prescr. 2005;28:83–4.

12.

Marley J. Cost-effectiveness: the need to know. Aust Prescr. 1996;19:58–9.

13.

Gallego G, Melocco T, Taylor S, Brien J. Access to high-cost drugs: decision makers’ perspectives. J Pharm Pract Res. 2005;35(1):18–20.

14.

Martin D, Hollenberg D, MacRae S, Madden S, Singer P. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy. 2003;66(3):295–303.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Eddama O, Coast J. Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation. Health Policy. 2009;89(3):261–70.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Anell A, Svarvar P. Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines. A survey of attitudes in Swedish formulary committees. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(2):175–85.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 2000;52(3):179–92.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Peacock S, Ruta D, Mitton C, Donaldson C, Bate A, Murtagh M. Using economics to set pragmatic and ethical priorities. BMJ. 2006;332(7539):482–5.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Van Gool K, Gallego G, Haas M, Viney R, Hall J, Ward R. Economic evidence at the local level: options for making it more useful. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(12):1055–62.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Hospital Drug and Therapeutics Committees in Australia: is there a role for economic evaluation at the institutional level?
Author: Gisselle Gallego
Publication date: 01-12-2011
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy / Issue 6/2011
Print ISSN: 2210-7703
Electronic ISSN: 2210-7711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9565-3

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2011

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: comparison between response to fondaparinux and lepirudin

The process of identifying, solving and preventing drug related problems in the LIMM-study

Clinical pharmacists and basic scientists: do patients and physicians need this collaboration?

The appropriateness of enoxaparin use in Lebanese hospitals: a quality evaluation study

Medication management during pregnancy: role of the pharmacist

Review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve seamless care focusing on medication

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials