IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v122y2018i3p243-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medicines access programs to cancer medicines in Australia and New Zealand: An exploratory study

Author

Listed:
  • Grover, Piyush
  • Babar, Zaheer-Ud-Din
  • Oehmen, Raoul
  • Vitry, Agnes

Abstract

Medicines Access Programs (MAP) offer access to publicly unfunded medicines at the discretion of pharmaceutical companies. Limited literature is available on their extent and scope in Australia and New Zealand. This study aims to identify MAPs for cancer medicines that were operational in 2014-15 in Australia and New Zealand and describe their characteristics. A preliminary list of MAPs was sent to hospital pharmacists in Australia and New Zealand to validate and collect further information. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted directly to provide information regarding MAPs offered. Key stakeholders were interviewed to identify issues with MAPs. Fifty-one MAPs were identified covering a range of indications. The majority of MAPs were provided free of charge to the patient for medicines that were registered or in the process of being registered but were not funded. Variability in the number of MAPs across institutions and characteristics was observed. Australia offered more MAPs than New Zealand. Only two of 17 pharmaceutical companies contacted agreed to provide information on their MAPs. Eight stakeholder interviews were conducted. This identified that while MAPs are widely operational there is lack of clinical monitoring, inequity to access, operational issues and lack of transparency. Our results suggest a need for a standardised and mandated policy to mitigate issues with MAPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Grover, Piyush & Babar, Zaheer-Ud-Din & Oehmen, Raoul & Vitry, Agnes, 2018. "Medicines access programs to cancer medicines in Australia and New Zealand: An exploratory study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 243-249.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:3:p:243-249
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851017303457
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yinghua He & Antonio Miralles & Marek Pycia & Jianye Yan, 2018. "A Pseudo-Market Approach to Allocation with Priorities," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 272-314, August.
    2. Gallego, Gisselle & Taylor, Susan Joyce & Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth, 2009. "Funding and access to high cost medicines in public hospitals in Australia: Decision-makers' perspectives," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 27-34, September.
    3. Hans-W. Micklitz & Lucia A. Reisch & Fernando Gomez, 2017. "Editorial to a Special Section," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 177-177, June.
    4. Vitry, Agnes & Roughead, Elizabeth, 2014. "Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals in Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 345-352.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Toward an Ethical Experiment," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Experiment-as-Market: Incorporating Welfare into Randomized Controlled Trials," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127r, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2019.
    3. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    4. Muhammad Irfan & Michael P Cameron & Gazi Hassan, 2021. "Interventions to mitigate indoor air pollution: A cost-benefit analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Fedor Sandomirskiy & Philip Ushchev, 2024. "The geometry of consumer preference aggregation," Papers 2405.06108, arXiv.org.
    6. Ortega, Josué, 2019. "The losses from integration in matching markets can be large," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 48-51.
    7. Vogler, Sabine & Zimmermann, Nina & de Joncheere, Kees, 2016. "Policy interventions related to medicines: Survey of measures taken in European countries during 2010–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1363-1377.
    8. Schlegel, J. C., 2017. "A Note on Ex-Ante Stable Lotteries," Working Papers 17/06, Department of Economics, City University London.
    9. Josu'e Ortega, 2018. "The Losses from Integration in Matching Markets can be Large," Papers 1810.10287, arXiv.org.
    10. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    11. Jugal Garg & Thorben Trobst & Vijay V. Vazirani, 2020. "One-Sided Matching Markets with Endowments: Equilibria and Algorithms," Papers 2009.10320, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    12. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Seung-Lai Yoo & Dae-Jung Kim & Seung-Mi Lee & Won-Gu Kang & Sang-Yoon Kim & Jong Hyuk Lee & Dong-Churl Suh, 2019. "Improving Patient Access to New Drugs in South Korea: Evaluation of the National Drug Formulary System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-15, January.
    14. Gabrielle Fack & Julien Grenet & Yinghua He, 2019. "Beyond Truth-Telling: Preference Estimation with Centralized School Choice and College Admissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(4), pages 1486-1529, April.
    15. Andrea Canidio, 2023. "Auctions with Tokens: Monetary Policy as a Mechanism Design Choice," Papers 2301.13794, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    16. Schlegel, Jan Christoph, 2018. "A note on ex-ante stable lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 90-93.
    17. He, Yinghua & Li, Sanxi & Yan, Jianye, 2015. "Evaluating assignment without transfers: A market perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 40-44.
    18. Hashimoto, Tadashi, 2018. "The generalized random priority mechanism with budgets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 708-733.
    19. Caterina Calsamiglia & Francisco Martinez-Mora & Antonio Miralles, 2020. "Cardinal Assignment Mechanisms: Money Matters More than it Should," Working Papers 1150, Barcelona School of Economics.
    20. Sopany Saing & Naomi van der Linden & Christopher Hayward & Stephen Goodall, 2019. "Why is There Discordance between the Reimbursement of High-Cost ‘Life-Extending’ Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices? The Funding of Ventricular Assist Devices in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 421-431, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:3:p:243-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.