Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:57:42.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breaking up is hard to do: the economic impact of provisional funding contingent upon evidence development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2011

Duncan Mortimer ,
Jing Jing Li ,
Jennifer Watts  and
Anthony Harris
Duncan Mortimer*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Australia
Jing Jing Li
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Australia
Jennifer Watts
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Australia
Anthony Harris
Affiliation:
Professor and Deputy Director, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Australia
*
Correspondence to: Duncan Mortimer, Associate Professor, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Building 75, Victoria 3800, Australia. Email: duncan.mortimer@buseco.monash.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Funding contingent upon evidence development (FED) has recently been the subject of some considerable debate in the literature but relatively little has been made of its economic impact. We argue that FED has the potential to shorten the lag between innovation and access but may also (i) crowd-out more valuable interventions in situations in which there is a fixed dedicated budget; or (ii) lead to a de facto increase in the funding threshold and increased expenditure growth in situations in which the programme budget is open-ended. Although FED would typically entail periodic review of provisional or interim listings, it may prove difficult to withdraw funding even at cost/QALY ratios well in excess of current listing thresholds. Further consideration of the design and implementation of FED processes is therefore required to ensure that its introduction yields net benefits over existing processes.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , 06 September 2011 , pp. 509 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

AETNA (2007), Clinical Policy Bulletin: Cardiac CT, Coronary CT Angiography and Calcium Scoring. Update to Provide Medical Necessity Indications for Cardiac CT Angiography, Hartford, CT: AETNA.Google Scholar
Appleby, J. (2008), ‘The case of CT angiography: how Americans view and embrace new technology’, Health Affairs, 27: 1515–1521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bischoff, I. (2008), ‘Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 39: 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, C., Dranitsaris, G., Gainford, M., Berry, S., Fralick, M., Fralick, J., Sue, J.Clemons, M. (2007), ‘External influences and priority setting for anti-cancer agents: a case study of media coverage in adjuvant transtuzumab for breast cancer’, BMC Cancer, 7: 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, A., Ritchie, K., Fenwick, E., Chalkidou, K.Littlejohns, P. (2010), ‘Access with evidence development in the UK: past experience, current initiatives and future potential’, Pharmacoeconomics, 28: 163–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carino, T., Williams, R., Colbert, A.Bridger, P. (2006), ‘Medicare's coverage of colorectal cancer drugs: a case study in evidence development and policy’, Health Affairs, 25: 1231–1239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalkidou, K., Hoy, A.Littlejohns, P. (2007), ‘Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 100(10): 453–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalkidou, K., Lord, A. J., Fischer, A.Littlejohns, P. (2008), ‘Evidence-based decision making: when should we wait for more information?’, Health Affairs, 27: 1642–1653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, A. C., Chan, K.Martinez, F. J. (2007), ‘Lessons from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial’, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 8: 172–180.Google Scholar
Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (2006), Guidance for the Public, Industry and CMS Staff—National Coverage Determinations with Data Collection as a Condition of Coverage: Coverage with Evidence Development, Baltimore, MD: Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services.Google Scholar
Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS) (2008), Decision Memo for Computed Tomographic Angiography (CAG-00385N), Baltimore, MD: Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services.Google Scholar
Dalziel, K., Segal, L.Mortimer, D. (2008), ‘Review of Australian economic evaluation in health – 245 interventions: what can we say about cost-effectiveness?’, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 6: 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhalla, I. A., Garner, S., Chalkidou, K.Littlejohns, P. (2010), ‘Perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research’, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 25: 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowie, J. (2004), ‘Why cost-effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant’, Health Economics, 13: 453–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowie, J. (2005), ‘No room for kinkiness in a public healthcare system’, Pharmacoeconomics, 23: 1203–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W.Loomes, G. (1994), ‘Imprecise preferences and the WTP–WTA disparity’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9: 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elshaug, A. G., Hiller, J. E., Tunis, S. R.Moss, J. R. (2007), ‘Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices’, Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 4: 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferner, R. E.McDowell, S. E. (2006), ‘How NICE may be outflanked’, British Medical Journal, 332: 1268–1271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gafni, A., Ravid, S. (1989), ‘The Compensating Variation Approach: The Case of Lives Saved vs Lives Taken’, Paper no. 20, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Hamilton, Canada.Google Scholar
George, B., Harris, A.Mitchell, A. (2001), ‘Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996)’, Pharmacoeconomics, 19: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grutters, J., Kessels, A., Dirksen, C., van Helvoort-Postulart, D., Anteunis, L.Joore, M. (2008), ‘Willingness to accept versus willingness to pay in a discrete choice experiment’, Value in Health, 11: 1110–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herxheimer, A. (2003), ‘Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and patients’ organisations’, British Medical Journal, 326: 1208–1210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, D. A., Tunnage, B.Yeo, S. T. (2005), ‘Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding?’, Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 98: 829–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutton, J., Trueman, P.Henshall, C. (2007), ‘Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues’, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 23(4): 425–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.Thaler, R. (1990), ‘Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase Theorem’, Journal of Political Economy, 98: 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, J. L.Wong, W.-K. (2009), ‘The endowment effect and the reference state: evidence and manipulations’, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 71: 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, M. J., Siegel, B., Tunis, S., Hillnler, B., Shields, A., Carey, B.Coleman, R. (2007), ‘The national oncologic PET registry: expanded medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development’, American Journal of Roentgenology, 188(4): 1109–1113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKenzie, R., Chapman, S., Salkeld, G.Holding, S. (2008), ‘Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: application of the rule of rescue?’, Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 101: 305–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, J.Aldhous, P. (2006), ‘Patient groups swallowing the best advice?’, New Scientist, 2575: 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medicare Benefits Reviews Task Group (MBRTG) (2010), Development of a Quality Framework for the Medicare Benefits Schedule: Discussion Paper, Medicare Benefits Reviews Task Group (MBRTG), Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.Google Scholar
McCabe, C. J., Stakinski, T., Edlin, R.Menon, D. (2010), ‘Access with evidence development schemes: a framework for description and evaluation’, Pharmacoeconomics, 28: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, D., McCabe, C. J., Stafinski, T.Edlin, R. (2010), ‘Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches: a consensus statement from the Banff Summit’, Pharmacoeconomics, 28: 109–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, F.Pearson, S. (2008), ‘Coverage with evidence development: ethical issues and policy implications’, Medical Care, 46: 746–751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mintzes, B. (2007), ‘Should patient groups accept money from drug companies? No’, British Medical Journal, 334: 935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, D.Segal, L. (2008), ‘Is the value of a life-year saved context specific? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment’, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 6: 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, G. (1998), ‘Understanding the disparity between WTP and WTA: endowment effect, substitutability, or imprecise preferences?’, Economics Letters, 59: 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, G. (2000), ‘WTP and WTA in repeated trial experiments: learning or leading?’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 21: 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) (2001a), ‘Assessment Report for Application 1031: Deep Brain Stimulation for the Symptoms of Parkinson's Disease’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) (2001b), ‘Assessment Report for Application 1011: Lung Volume Reduction Surgery’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) (2002a), ‘Assessment Report for Application 1014: TransUrethral Needle Ablation (TUNA) for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) (2002b), ‘Assessment Report for Reference 08: Intra-operative Transoesophageal Echocardiography’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) (2005a), ‘Funding for New Medical Technologies and Procedures: Application and Assessment Guidelines’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) (2005b), ‘Assessment Report for Application 1065: Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE (2005), Appraising Orphan Drugs, London: NICE.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2010), Appraising End of Life Medicines, London: NICE.Google Scholar
O'Brien, B.Gafni, A. (1996), ‘When do the “dollars” make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care’, Medical Decision Making, 16: 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, B., Gersten, K., Willan, A.Faulkner, L. (2002), ‘Is there a kink in consumers’ threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care?’, Health Economics, 11: 175–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, A., Spinks, J., Meehan, A., Robb, T., Hardy, M., Kwasha, D., Wlodarczyk, J.Reid, C. (2006), ‘A new model to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of orphan and highly specialized drugs following listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: The Bosentan Patient Registry’, Journal of Medical Economics, 11: 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society of Cardiovascular Computer Tomography (SCCT) (2010), Society of Cardiovascular Computer Tomography: Vision, Mission and Goals, Vienna, Virginia: SCCT.Google Scholar
Segal, L., Dalziel, K.Mortimer, D. (2010), ‘Fixing the game: are between-silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head-start?’, Health Economics, 19(4): 449–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R., Olsen, J. A.Harris, A. (1999), A Review of Methodological Issues in the Conduct of WTP Studies in Health Care III: Issues in the Analysis and Interpretation of WTP Data, Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University.Google Scholar
Stafinski, T., McCabe, C. J.Menon, D. (2010), ‘Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems’, Pharmacoeconomics, 28: 113–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Towse, A.Garrison, L. (2010), ‘Can't get no satisfaction? Will pay for Performance help? Toward an economic framework for understanding performance-based risk-sharing agreements for innovative medical products’, Pharmacoeconomics, 28: 93–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tunis, S.Chalkidou, K. (2007), ‘Coverage with evidence development: a very good beginning, but much to be done. Commentary to Hutton et al.’, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 23(4): 432–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tunis, S.Pearson, S. (2006), ‘Coverage options for promising technologies: medicare's “Coverage with Evidence Development” ’, Health Affairs, 25: 1218–1230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whynes, D.Sach, T. (2007), ‘WTP and WTA: do people think differently?’, Social Science and Medicine, 65: 946–957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wlodarczyk, J., Cleland, L., Keogh, A., McNeil, K., Perl, K., Weintraub, R. G.Williams, T. (2006), ‘Public funding of bosentan for the treatment of pulmonary artery hypertension in Australia—Cost effectiveness and risk sharing’, Pharmacoeconomics, 24(9): 903–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed