Navigating the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: federal versus state government funding for high-cost medicines – a problem for public hospitals
Jeanie Misko A * , Barry Jenkins A and Matt Rawlins
A
A Pharmacy Department, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Australian Health Review 46(3) 316-318 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22002
Submitted: 6 January 2022 Accepted: 15 March 2022 Published: 12 May 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of AHHA.
Abstract
The funding of medication supply in Australian public hospitals is divided between the federal government’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and thestate or territory government who pay for the remaining medications not covered under the PBS. For some high-cost medications, such as the monoclonal antibody blinatumomab, the current criteria for PBS funding in public hospitals are challenging. The strict requirement for inpatient admission, due to the risk of potentially serious adverse effects, alongside a lack of PBS reimbursement, while a hospital inpatient, may result in the state bearing the cost. A retrospective review of five patients receiving blinatumomab at our hospital found that, on average, patients remained inpatients for longer than that stipulated to meet PBS funding criteria, predominantly due to adverse effects associated with the medication. This resulted in the state government paying for the medication in full. The upcoming National Medicines Policy review should address the increasing complexity of new medications and their access and funding.
Keywords: blinatumomab, funding, hospitals, length of stay, medication access, medication costs, National Medicines Policy, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
References
[1] Australian Government Department of Health. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: About the PBS. Canberra: Australian Government; 2022. Available at https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/about-the-pbs [cited 3 March 2022][2] Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. National Medicines Policy. 2000. Report No. 2564. Available at https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/B2FFBF72029EEAC8CA257BF0001BAF3F/$File/NMP2000.pdf
[3] Australian Government Department of Health. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: National Medicines Policy Review to begin in August 2021. Canberra: Australian Government; 2021. Available at https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/news/2021/06/national-medicines-policy-review-to-begin-in-august-2021 [cited 30 June 2021]
[4] McLachlan AJ, Aslani P. National Medicines Policy 2.0: a vision for the future. Aust Prescr 2020; 43 24–6.
| National Medicines Policy 2.0: a vision for the future.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32139959PubMed |
[5] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Partnering with consumers standard. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2022. Available at https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/standards/nsqhs-standards/partnering-consumers-standard [cited 9 March 2022]
[6] Australian Government Department of Health. Blinatumomab (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme). Canberra: Australian Government; 2021. Available at https://www.pbs.gov.au/medicine/item/11115B-11116C-11117D-11118E-11119F-11120G-11799B-11814T-11850Q-11867N [cited 10 December 2021]
[7] Australian Healthcare Associates. Department of Health PBS pharmaceuticals in hospitals review: final report. Australian Healthcare Associates; 2017. Available at https://www.pbs.gov.au/reviews/pbs-pharmaceuticals-in-hospitals-review-files/PBS-Pharmaceuticals-in-Hospitals-Review.pdf
[8] Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: blinatumomab. Canberra: Australian Government; 2016. Available at https://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2016-07/files/blinatumomab-psd-july-2016.pdf [cited 25 May 2021]
