Health technology assessment in Australia: challenges ahead

Jackson, Terri J

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01238.x

Topics

Australia is well placed to again lead the world in health technology assessment

Australia led the world in 1993 when it introduced the so-called “fourth hurdle” of economic evaluation into the approvals process for drugs (in addition to the usual regulatory “hurdles” of quality, safety, and efficacy).1 We are among the dozen or so developed countries that had invested in health technology assessment (HTA) since the early 1980s, but it was the requirement of a favourable economic evaluation that attracted international attention to HTA in Australia.2 While economic evaluation had always been considered a component of HTA, a policy requiring evidence of cost-effectiveness was groundbreaking.3

Australian Centre for Economic Research on Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.

Correspondence: t.jackson@uq.edu.au

Acknowledgements:

I am grateful to Judith Healy, Director of RegHealth Program, Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, for comments and suggestions on a draft of this article.

Competing interests:

Terri Jackson has served as a member of the Medical Services Advisory Committee since 1998.

1. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004; 329: 972-975.
2. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in 11 countries. Health working paper 4. Paris: OECD, 2003.
3. Birkett DJ, Mitchell AS. McManus P. A cost-effectiveness approach to drug subsidy and pricing in Australia. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001; 20: 104-114.
4. O’Malley SP. The Australian experiment: the use of evidence based medicine for the reimbursement of surgical and diagnostic procedures (1998–2004). Aust New Zealand Health Policy [Internet] 2006; 3: 3.
5. Harris A, Bulfone L. Getting value for money: the Australian experience. In: Jost TS, editor. Health care coverage determinations: an international comparative study. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 2005: 25-56.
6. Walley T. Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 283-285. <MJA full text>
7. Hailey DM. Health technology assessment in Canada: diversity and evolution. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 286-288. <MJA full text>
8. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20: 1-10.
9. Harris A, Buxton M, O’Brien B, et al. Using economic evidence in reimbursement decisions for health technologies: experience of 4 countries. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2001; 1: 7-12.
10. Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. Melbourne: Productivity Commission, 2005.
11. Harvey KJ, Faunce TA, Lokuge B, Drahos P. Will the Australia–United States free trade agreement undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? Med J Aust 2004; 181: 256-259. <MJA full text>
12. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). http://www.health.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/review-1 (accessed Aug 2007).
13. Petherick ES, Villanueva EV, Dumville J, et al. An evaluation of methods used in health technology assessments produced for the Medical Services Advisory Committee. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 289-292. <MJA full text>
14. Henry DA, Hill SR. Assessing new health technologies: lessons to be learned from drugs. Med J Aust 1999; 171: 554-556.
15. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. ASERNIP-S (Australian Register of Safety and Efficacy — Surgical). http://www.surgeons.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/ASERNIPS/default.htm (accessed Aug 2007).
16. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network — about horizon scanning. The Health Policy Advisory Committee on Technology (HealthPACT). http://www.health.gov.au/internet/horizon/publishing.nsf/Content/healthpact-2 (accessed Aug 2007).
17. State Government of Victoria, Australia, Department of Human Services. Victorian Government Health Information. New Technology/Clinical Practice program 2005–06. Victorian Policy Advisory Committee on Clinical Practice and Technology. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/newtech/committee.htm (accessed Aug 2007).
18. US Department of Health and Human Services. CMS (Centres for Medicare and Medicaid). Medicare coverage database. National coverage determinations with data collection as a condition of coverage: coverage with evidence development. 7 December 2006. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/ncpc_view_document.asp?id=8 (accessed Aug 2007).
19. Hall WD, Ward R, Liauw WS, et al. Tailoring access to high cost, genetically targeted drugs. Assessment of real cost effectiveness, with data linked to individual health outcomes while protecting patient privacy, is an essential challenge we need to meet. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 607-608. <MJA full text>
20. Cutler DM. The demise of the blockbuster? N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1292-1293.
21. Kelman CW, Pearson SA, O’Day R, et al. Evaluating medicines: let’s use all the evidence. Med J Aust 2007; 186: 249-252. <MJA full text>
22. Glasziou P. Support for trials of promising medications through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. A proposal for a new authority category. Med J Aust 1995; 162: 33-36.
23. Etheredge LM. A rapid-learning health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007; 26: w107-w118.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.