Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:44:38.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of consumer comments into PBAC decision-making (2014–9)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2022

Emily Tjeuw Open the ORCID record for Emily Tjeuw [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael J. Wonder Open the ORCID record for Michael J. Wonder [Opens in a new window]
Emily Tjeuw*
Affiliation:
Wonder Drug Consulting, PO Box 470, Cronulla, New South Wales 2230, Australia
Michael J. Wonder
Affiliation:
Wonder Drug Consulting, PO Box 470, Cronulla, New South Wales 2230, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Emily Tjeuw, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) is an independent expert body that recommends new technologies for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Its decision-making process is evidence-based and considers a technology's clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness compared with other technologies. Since 2014, the PBAC has formally taken into account input from those impacted by the technology via an online consumer comments portal and has also reported on received comments in the Public Summary Documents (PSDs). Comments are welcomed from those whose health the technology is trying to improve, as well as carers, clinicians, and organizations. Our objective was to analyze and review consumer comments in the PBAC's decision-making process.

Methods

We extracted information about consumer comments from the PBAC PSDs from 2014–9. We conducted simple descriptive analyses.

Results

Our findings reveal that two thirds of all submissions did not receive a single consumer comment. Of the remaining third, eight submissions (less than 1 percent) had a substantial number of consumer comments (>500). For these technologies, multiple submissions were required before a recommendation was issued. Submissions spanned multiple therapeutic areas, the therapeutic areas with the most consumer comments were genetic disease, pediatrics, and oncology.

Conclusions

In the light of our review, we have identified limitations to the current consumer comments process, and after an examination of the processes of other comparable health technology assessment agencies, we have identified a number of improvements that could be made to the PBAC's process to increase consumer engagement.

Keywords

Technology assessmentDecision-makingAdvisory committeesPatient carePatient participation
Type
Policy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e18
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Department of Health [Internet]. About the PBS. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/about-the-pbs.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. National Immunisation Program. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/national-immunisation-program.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) Membership. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/participants/pbac.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. Recommendations made out-of-session by the PBAC between meetings. 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/recommendations-made-out-of-session-by-the-pbac-between-meet.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. Public Summary Documents Explained. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/pbac-psd-psd-explained.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. PBAC meeting agenda and consumer comments. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-consumer-comments.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. PBS latest news. 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/news.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. Prescription medicines determination and designation notices. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 27]. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/ws-designation-notices-index.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. PBAC outcomes. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 27]. Available from: https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes.Google Scholar
Fabbri, A, Swandari, S, Lau, E, Vitry, A, Mintzes, B. Pharmaceutical industry funding of health consumer groups in Australia: A cross-sectional analysis. Int J Health Serv. 2019;49(2):273–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flowers, M, Lybrand, S, Wonder, M. Analysis of sponsor hearings on health technology assessment decision making. Aust Health Rev. 2019;44:258–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. Guidelines for initiation of stakeholder meetings. 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 29]. Available from: https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/initiation-of-stakeholder-meetings.Google Scholar
Burke, N. It's now or never [Internet]. Cystic fibrosis Australia. 2018 [cited 2020 Sept 10]. Available from: https://www.cysticfibrosis.org.au/getmedia/e81d8496-388b-42fe-8a26-70d6ed09c4f6/Communique-95-It-s-now-or-never.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf.Google Scholar
Migraine Australia [Internet]. Aimovig and ajovy on the PBAC agenda for November. 2019 [cited 2020 Sept 10]. Available from: http://www.migraineaustralia.org/2019/09/11/aimovig-and-ajovy-on-the-pbac-agenda-for-november.Google Scholar
Migraine Australia [Internet]. Ajovy is on the November agenda for PBAC (as well as Aimovig). 2019 [cited 2020 Sept 10]. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/migraineaus/posts/2791840954182205.Google Scholar
Migraine & Headache Australia [Internet]. CGRP update: February 2019. 2019 [cited 2020 Sept 10]. Available from: https://headacheaustralia.org.au/cgrp-update-february-2019.Google Scholar
Hashem, F, Calnan, MW, Brown, PR. Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives? Health Expect. 2017;21:128–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandeville, KL, Barker, R, Packham, A, Sowerby, C, Yarrow, K, Patrick, H. Financial interests of patient organisations contributing to technology assessment at England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: policy review. BMJ. 2019;364:k5300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Get involved. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/get-involved.Google Scholar
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review [Internet]. Patients. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 19]. Available from: https://icer.org/patients/.Google Scholar
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health [Internet]. Patient input and feedback. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 26]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/patient-input-and-feedback.Google Scholar
Patient Voice Initiative [Internet]. What is the PBS? 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.patientvoiceinitiative.org/patient-experience-and-participation/pharmaceutical-benefits-scheme/#pbs.Google Scholar
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review [Internet]. Independent appraisal committees. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 19]. Available from: https://icer.org/who-we-are/people/independent-appraisal-committees/.Google Scholar
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health [Internet]. Canadian Drug Expert Committee (CDEC). 2017 [cited 2021 Nov 26]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/canadian-drug-expert-committee-cdec.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Guide to the technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies appeal process. 2017 [cited 2021 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg18/chapter/making-an-appeal.Google Scholar
Department of Health [Internet]. Landmark new medicines agreements to bring significant benefits for Australian patients. 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/landmark-new-medicines-agreements-to-bring-significant-benefits-for-australian-patients.Google Scholar