Application of an economic evaluation approach to making regulatory decisions regarding access to medicines: advantages, challenges and recommendations
Bonny Parkinson A B and Henry Cutler AA Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: bonny.parkinson@mq.edu.au
Australian Health Review 46(2) 143-149 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH20208
Submitted: 6 August 2020 Accepted: 16 April 2021 Published: 14 December 2021
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2022 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Initially patients require a prescription to access most new medicines. Some medicines may later be reclassified, allowing patients to access them without a prescription. Currently, Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration guidelines regarding reclassification decisions focus on patient risk rather than on potential benefits to patient health and the healthcare system. We conducted two extensive case studies demonstrating an economic evaluation approach to medicine reclassification in Australia, which were presented at various conferences and to key stakeholders. This article discusses the advantages and challenges of using an economic evaluation approach to inform medicine reclassification decisions. Advantages identified include systematically and transparently synthesising evidence from multiple sources; predicting the overall expected impact of reclassification on health outcomes and costs before it occurs; considering a broader range of risks and benefits; aggregation of health impacts into a single measure (quality-adjusted life years); identification of drivers of uncertainty; insight into the effects of different regulatory decisions; and improved consistency of evidence. Challenges include data availability and quality, estimating behavioural changes, model complexity, the lack of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, and funding of economic analyses. We recommend that regulatory decision makers use an economic evaluation approach to help inform reclassification decisions, although economic evaluation results should be considered as part of the broader body of evidence. Ultimately, the use of an economic evaluation approach will contribute to helping decision makers maximise population health outcomes in an efficient way.
What is known about the topic? In the past, decisions regarding medicine reclassification have generally been made using a deliberative approach focusing on patient risk. However, there are also potential benefits to patient health and effects on the healthcare system. Increasing awareness of these benefits have led to the development of alternative approaches to decision making, including an economic evaluation approach.
What does this paper add? This article discusses the advantages and challenges of using an economic evaluation approach to inform medicine reclassification decisions compared with alternative approaches.
What are the implications for practitioners? Economic evaluation results should be considered as part of the broader body of evidence regarding the types of health impacts, the extent of the available evidence, who will be affected, and the role of medical practitioners and pharmacists in mitigating any risks. However, awareness of the advantages and challenges of this approach in advance will help mitigate some of the challenges and increase acceptance of the economic evaluation results by decision makers and stakeholders.
Keywords: Australia, behind-the-counter, cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, medicine reclassification, non-prescription drugs, over-the-counter, prescription drugs.
References
[1] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Poisons standard, October 2020. Canberra: TGA; 2020.[2] Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council. Scheduling policy framework for medicines and chemicals. Version 1.0. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2018.
[3] Therapeutic Goods Administration. Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling (ACMS). 2016. Available at https://www.tga.gov.au/committee/advisory-committee-medicines-scheduling-acms [verified 28 April 2016].
[4] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Scheduling handbook: guidance for amending the poisons standard. Canberra: TGA; 2019.
[5] Brass EP, Lofstedt R, Renn O. Improving the decision-making process for nonprescription drugs: a framework for benefit-risk assessment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 90 791–803.
| Improving the decision-making process for nonprescription drugs: a framework for benefit-risk assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22048228PubMed |
[6] Sansom L, Delaat W, Horvath J. Review of medicines and medical devices regulation: report on the regulatory framework for medicines and medical devices. Canberra: Department of Health; 2015. Available at https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Expert-Review-of-Medicines-and-Medical-Devices-Regulation [verified 15 September 2021].
[7] Kunz K, Arundell E, Cisternas M, et al Economic implications of self-treatment of heartburn/nonulcur dyspepsia with nonprescription famotidine in a managed care setting. J Manag Care Pharm 1996; 2 263–71.
| Economic implications of self-treatment of heartburn/nonulcur dyspepsia with nonprescription famotidine in a managed care setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Kalish SC, Bohn RL, Avorn J. Policy analysis of the conversion of histamine2 antagonists to over-the-counter use. Med Care 1997; 35 32–48.
| Policy analysis of the conversion of histamine2 antagonists to over-the-counter use.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 8998201PubMed |
[9] Cohen J, DiMasi J. Modeling a switch of loratadine from prescription to over-the-counter status. J Res Pharma Econ 2001; 11 43–54.
| Modeling a switch of loratadine from prescription to over-the-counter status.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Zhu M, Wertheimer A, Field R. The financial impact of over-the-counter availability of oral contraceptive pills. J Res Pharma Econ 2001; 11 125–42.
| The financial impact of over-the-counter availability of oral contraceptive pills.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Keeler TE, Hu T-W, Keith A, et al The benefits of switching smoking cessation drugs to over-the-counter status. Health Econ 2002; 11 389–402.
| The benefits of switching smoking cessation drugs to over-the-counter status.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12112489PubMed |
[12] Sullivan PW, Follin SL, Nichol MB. Transitioning the second-generation antihistamines to over-the-counter status: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 2003; 41 1382–95.
| Transitioning the second-generation antihistamines to over-the-counter status: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14668671PubMed |
[13] Association Européenne des Spécialités Pharmaceutiques Grand Public. The economic and public health value of self-medication. 2004. Available at https://aesgp.eu/content/uploads/2019/10/THE-ECONOMIC-AND-PUBLIC-HEALTH-VALUE-OF-SELF-MEDICATION.pdf [verified 15 September 2021].
[14] Millier A, Cohen J, Toumi M. Economic impact of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch in six EU countries. PLoS One 2013; 8 e84088
| Economic impact of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch in six EU countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24367628PubMed |
[15] Koslow S, West A, Xu C, et al. The value of OTC medicines in Australia. 2014. Available at https://www.chpaustralia.com.au/Tenant/C0000022/Documents/Research/Value%20of%20OTC%20Medicines%20in%20Australia.pdf [verified 15 September 2021].
[16] Foster DG, Biggs MA, Phillips KA, et al Potential public sector cost-savings from over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives. Contraception 2015; 91 373–9.
| Potential public sector cost-savings from over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25732570PubMed |
[17] KPMG. Economic modelling and financial quantification of the regulatory impact of proposed changes to codeine scheduling. Canberra: Therapeutic Drugs Administration; 2016. Available at https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/economic-modelling-and-financial-quantification-regulatory-impact-proposed-changes-codeine-scheduling [verified 15 September 2021].
[18] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Codeine re-scheduling regulation impact statement. Version 1.1, December 2016. Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) ID number: 19826. Canberra: TGA; 2016. Available at https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/regulation-impact-statement-codeine-re-scheduling.pdf [verified 15 September 2021].
[19] Parkinson B, Gumbie M, Cutler H, et al Cost-effectiveness of reclassifying triptans in Australia: application of an economic evaluation approach to regulatory decisions. Value Health 2019; 22 293–302.
| Cost-effectiveness of reclassifying triptans in Australia: application of an economic evaluation approach to regulatory decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30832967PubMed |
[20] Gumbie M, Parkinson B, Cutler H, et al Is reclassification of the oral contraceptive pill from prescription to pharmacist-only cost-effective? Application of an economic evaluation approach to regulatory decisions. PharmacoEconomics 2019; 37 1049–64.
| Is reclassification of the oral contraceptive pill from prescription to pharmacist-only cost-effective? Application of an economic evaluation approach to regulatory decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31069781PubMed |
[21] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. Record of reasons, 44th meeting, 21–23 June 2005. Canberra: TGA; 2005.
[22] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. Record of reasons, 47th meeting, 20–22 June 2006. Canberra: TGA; 2006.
[23] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. Record of reasons, 48th meeting, 10–12 October 2006. Canberra: TGA; 2006.
[24] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. Record of reasons, 49th meeting, 20–22 February 2007. Canberra: TGA; 2007.
[25] Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Interim decisions and reasons for decisions by delegates of the Secretary to the Department of Health, June 2015. Canberra: TGA; 2015.
[26] Kuntz K, Weinstein C. Modelling in economic evaluation. In Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. pp. 141–71.
[27] Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Cost-utility analysis. In Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 137–210.
[28] Gauld NJ, Kelly FS, Kurosawa N, et al Widening consumer access to medicines through switching medicines to non-prescription: a six country comparison. PLoS One 2014; 9 e107726
| Widening consumer access to medicines through switching medicines to non-prescription: a six country comparison.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25251434PubMed |
[29] Gauld NJ, Kelly FS, Emmerton LM, et al Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand. PLoS One 2015; 10 e0119011
| Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25785589PubMed |
[30] MEDSAFE. Minutes of the 51st meeting of the medicines classification committee held in the MEDSAFE boardroom, level 6, Deloitte House, 10 Brandon Street, Wellington on Tuesday 8 April 2014 at 9:30 am. 2014. Available at http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/class/Minutes/2011-2015/mccMin8April2014.htm [verified 23 January 2017].
[31] Therapeutic Goods Administration. Codeine information hub. 2018. Available at https://www.tga.gov.au/codeine-info-hub [verified 3 February 2021].
[32] Schaffer AL, Cairns R, Brown JA, et al Changes in sales of analgesics to pharmacies after codeine was rescheduled as a prescription only medicine. Med J Aust 2020; 212 321–7.
| Changes in sales of analgesics to pharmacies after codeine was rescheduled as a prescription only medicine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32200566PubMed |
[33] Cairns R, Schaffer AL, Brown JA, et al Codeine use and harms in Australia: evaluating the effects of re-scheduling. Addiction 2020; 115 451–9.
| Codeine use and harms in Australia: evaluating the effects of re-scheduling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31577369PubMed |
[34] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Health expenditure Australia 2015–16. Health and welfare expenditure series no. 58. Cat. no. HWE 68. Canberra: AIHW; 2017.
[35] Edney LC, Afzali HHA, Cheng TC, et al Estimating the reference incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Australian health system. Pharmacoeconomics 2018; 36 239–52.
| Estimating the reference incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Australian health system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29273843PubMed |
[36] Therapeutic Goods Administration. Scheduling delegate’s final decisions. 2021. Available at https://www.tga.gov.au/scheduling-delegates-final-decisions [verified 3 February 2021].
[37] Gauld N. Why the resurgence of POM-to-P reclassifications in the UK is a good thing. Pharm J 2017; 9 https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/why-the-resurgence-of-pom-to-p-reclassifications-in-the-uk-is-a-good-thing
[38] Hynd A, Roughead EE, Preen DB, et al Increased patient co-payments and changes in PBS-subsidised prescription medicines dispensed in Western Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 2009; 33 246–52.
| Increased patient co-payments and changes in PBS-subsidised prescription medicines dispensed in Western Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19630844PubMed |
[39] Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) (Version 5.0). September 2016. Canberra: Department of Health; 2016.
[40] Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office of Best Practice Regulation. Cost-benefit analysis. Canberra: Australian Government; 2016.
[41] Sculpher M. The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation. In Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. pp. 94–112.
[42] Lipman SA, Brouwer WBF, Attema AE. A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states. Eur J Health Econ 2019; 20 419–26.
| A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30229374PubMed |
[43] Attema A.E., Brouwer W.B., I’Haridon O. Prospect theory in the health domain: a quantitative assessment. J Health Econ 2013; 32 1057–65.
| Prospect theory in the health domain: a quantitative assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24103499PubMed |
[44] Lipman S, Brouwer W, Attema AE. QALYs without bias? Non-parametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory SSRN 2017;
| QALYs without bias? Non-parametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theoryCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[45] Attema AE, Brouwer WBF, I’Haridon O, et al An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory. J Health Econ 2016; 48 121–34.
| An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27179198PubMed |
