IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i3d10.1007_s40273-024-01446-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Qunfei Chen

    (Macquarie University
    University of Newcastle)

  • Martin Hoyle

    (Macquarie University)

  • Varinder Jeet

    (Macquarie University)

  • Yuanyuan Gu

    (Macquarie University)

  • Kompal Sinha

    (Macquarie University)

  • Bonny Parkinson

    (Macquarie University)

Abstract

Objective Health technology assessment is used extensively by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to inform medicine funding recommendations in Australia. The PBAC often does not recommend medicines due to uncertainties in economic modelling that result in delaying access to medicines for patients. The systematic identification of which uncertainties can be reduced with alternative evidence or the collection of additional data can help inform recommendations. This study aims to characterise different types of uncertainty in economic models and empirically assess their association with the PBAC recommendations. Methods A framework was developed to characterise four types of uncertainties: methodological, structural, generalisability and parameter uncertainty. The first two types were further subcategorised into parameterisable and unparameterisable uncertainty. Data on uncertainty and other factors were extracted from PBAC’s Public Summary Documents of first submissions for 193 medicine (vaccine)–indication pairs including economic modelling between 2014 and 2021. Logistic regression was used to estimate the average marginal effect of each type of uncertainty on the probability of a positive recommendation. Results The PBAC more often raised issues regarding parameter uncertainty (95%) and parameterisable structural uncertainty (83%) than generalisability uncertainty (48%) and unparameterisable methodological uncertainty (56%). The logistic regression results suggested that the PBAC was more likely to recommend a medicine without unparameterisable methodological, generalisability, and parameterisable structural uncertainty by 15.0%, 10.2 %, and 17.6%, respectively. Parameterisable methodological, unparameterisable structural and parameter uncertainty were not significantly associated with the PBAC recommendations. Conclusions This study identified the uncertainties that had significant associations with PBAC recommendations based on the first submission. This may help improve model quality and reduce resubmissions in the future, thus improving patients’ access to medicines.

Suggested Citation

  • Qunfei Chen & Martin Hoyle & Varinder Jeet & Yuanyuan Gu & Kompal Sinha & Bonny Parkinson, 2025. "Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 283-296, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01446-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01446-z. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.