Government's reponse to the deferring of medicines on the PBS

Parliament house flag post

Government's reponse to the deferring of medicines on the PBS

Posted 30/09/2011 by Rebecca de Boer

The announcement by the Government earlier today that medicines previously deferred on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) will be listed on the PBS has been welcomed by the main stakeholder groups. Medicines Australia (MA), the Consumers Health Forum (CHF) and the Generic Medicines Industry Association (GMiA) have all been lobbying Government to reverse the deferral decision made in February this year. See here and here for background.

At the same time, the Government also released the ‘statement of principles of commitment between stakeholders.’ This sets out the short and medium term arrangements for the deferral of PBS medicines.

In short, between now and October 2012, medicines approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) that cost less than $10 million per year (in each year of the Forward Estimates) will not be delayed listing on the PBS. MA, CHF, and GMiA have also committed to ‘discuss’ with Government ways in which future deferrals can be managed and identify possible savings to the PBS in the next Budget. In addition, MA, CHF and GMiA will also present the Government with a paper canvassing additional savings that could be achieved by Government when the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MA expires in 2014.

While this announcement has the broad support of stakeholders, there are many questions left unanswered. For example:

  • The Government’s media release indicated that ‘budget savings created by price reductions’ had enabled the listing of these deferred medicines. This represents a subtle shift from the accepted practice of listing PBS medicines, that is, medicines were listed on the PBS if they met the legislative criteria. The PBS is an uncapped program, designed to provide access to a wide range of prescription pharmaceuticals to all Australians. It is one of the few publicly funded programs with an explicit requirement for an economic evaluation (assessment of ‘value for money’) before receiving government subsidy. This raises questions about the role of economic evaluation when the Government makes decisions about PBS expenditure as well as broader questions about the listing of medicines on the PBS.
  • It is not possible to verify whether, or how, these particular savings have been made. There is no public reporting on how the saving expected from the MOU and the initial 2007 PBS reform measures are achieved. The Report to the Parliament on the impact of the 2007 PBS reforms revealed that the savings anticipated from these measures have been revised down from $580 million to $103 million over four years but it is not known whether these savings have been achieved. It is important to note that there is no requirement in the MOU which binds MA to deliver the anticipated savings to Government.
  • The statement does not explain what will happen to the listing of drugs that cost more than $10 million per year. Will these medicines continue to be considered by Cabinet? Previously, medicines that were expected to cost more than $10 million in any of the first four years of PBS listing had to be considered by Cabinet before they could be listed. Will the listing of these medicines now be deferred until 2012 or ‘until circumstances permit’ (as applied to medicines that were deferred in February)?
  • As part of the listing process on the PBS, the PBAC makes an assessment of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the pharmaceutical. Only products that receive a positive recommendation can be listed on the PBS (subject to Ministerial approval). The Guidelines for listing products on the PBS note that there is no ‘threshold’ for cost-effectiveness which determines a positive recommendation. By guaranteeing that medicines costing less than $10 million per annum over the Forward Estimates (and with a positive recommendation from the PBAC) will be listed, it could be argued that the Government is introducing a de-facto financial threshold for the listing of medicines on the PBS. While the result of such a threshold may be to encourage some pharmaceutical manufacturers to lower their price to government, it may also encourage others to restrict the availability of their medicine to certain populations so this de-facto threshold might be met. If this occurred it could raise questions about whether patients are able to access the most appropriate drug for their clinical need.

Today’s announcement gives the Government another year to determine the best way to deal with the listing of high cost drugs on the PBS. The Government has also committed to engaging with MA, CHF and GMiA to develop future policy options for savings on the cost of the PBS. Given the differing concerns of each of these groups, balancing their competing objectives will be no mean feat, especially if savings are to be achieved. There is no shortage of ideas for savings from the PBS (see here and here and here) but there is no consensus about the best approach. It remains to be seen whether pharmaceutical policy stakeholders will continue their united front when putting forward options to Government. For the Government, the ongoing challenge of balancing access and affordability to PBS medicines remains.

Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




immigration refugees elections taxation asylum Parliament criminal law election results Australian Bureau of Statistics social security disability citizenship Indigenous Australians political parties United Kingdom UK Parliament Census statistics banking early childhood education Middle East Australian foreign policy OECD Australian Electoral Commission voting mental health Employment military history by-election election timetable China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Productivity Defence income management asylum seekers High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title Senate ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories leadership aid Papua New Guinea emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding Electoral reform politics refugees immigration asylum Canada procurement Australian Public Service firearms Indigenous health constitution High Court e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament women 2015 International Women's Day public policy ABS Population Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade skilled migration Private health insurance Medicare Financial sector EU national security fuel China soft power education violence against women domestic violence Fiji India Disability Support Pension disability employment welfare reform Tasmania Antarctica China Diplomacy Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency Sport ASADA Federal Court WADA ADRV by-elections state and territories terrorism terrorist groups Bills corruption anti-corruption integrity fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform science innovation research and development transport standards Afghanistan Australian Defence Force NATO United States social media Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism higher education Higher Education Loan Program HECS welfare policy pensions social services welfare ASIO Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Australian Secret Intelligence Service intelligence community Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 sexual abuse online grooming sexual assault of minors labour force workers

Show all
Show less
Back to top