Pricing of cancer drugs in Australia - update on changes to the Senate Notice Paper

Parliament house flag post

Pricing of cancer drugs in Australia - update on changes to the Senate Notice Paper

Posted 28/11/2012 by Rebecca de Boer


The proposed (weighted average) price cut of 76.83% for docetaxel, a drug used in the treatment of cancer, has sparked controversy. There have been claims that cost to patients will increase by about $100 and that cancer services will close as a result of this reduction. On Monday 26 November, Senator Xenophon moved a motion to disallow this price reduction but this has been withdrawn. It was replaced with a cross-party motion (Senator Xenophon, the Coalition, Australian Greens and DLP Senator Madigan) to be moved on 29 November (the last sitting day of the Parliamentary year). The Greens are now no longer part of the motion and this is reflected on the Notice Paper for 29 November (*1080, p. 11).

The motion calls on the Government to negotiate with ‘relevant bodies regarding the cost of dispensing chemotherapy drugs’ and ensure that the ‘result of these negotiations will allow pharmacists to continue dispensing the drug (docetaxel), and other chemotherapy drugs, without disrupting patients’. The motion, did, however, ‘welcome’ the price disclosure policy framework. Although the voting intentions of the Greens is not yet known, the vote on this motion is likely to be close and 39 votes are required for it to pass. Despite this, motions passed by either House are not binding on the Government.

 This price cut is part of the Expanded and Accelerated Price Disclosure Policy (EAPD) agreed by the Government and Medicines Australia in the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in 2010. Price disclosure is designed to ensure that the Government reaps the benefits of the discounting arrangements between pharmacists and wholesalers for generic medicines. Manufacturers are required to disclose the actual price at which medicines are supplied to wholesalers and/or pharmacists. Price reductions occur if there is a difference of more than ten per cent between the weighted average disclosed price and the price paid by the Government.

Price reductions occur three times a year on 1 April, 1 August and 1 December. Prior to the reduction taking effect, a legislative instrument is tabled in Parliament. The Instrument must be tabled when Parliament is sitting and 'laid before each House within 6 sitting days [of that House] after the registration of the instrument' (section 38 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003). The Department is no longer legally obliged to notify manufacturers separately to the Instrument being tabled. It should be noted that there a significant time lag (around 18 months) between when the reporting period commences and when the reduction takes effect (see EAPD Operational Guidelines, p. 18).

The debate about the proposed price reduction of docetaxel has raised a number of questions about the pricing of pharmaceuticals in Australia. It has once again highlighted that Australia pays a high price for generic medicines. The Government has argued that prior to this policy being introduced, pharmacists had been charging 20% to 50% above market price for some drugs although this has been disputed by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Some pharmacists have argued that margin on generic medicines has been used to cross-subsidise other services and that these services will no longer be able to be provided once the price cut takes effect. Catholic Health Australia has warned that that cancer treatment services in rural and regional areas might close as a result. It has also raised questions about whether the remuneration for the dispensing of chemotherapy drugs is sufficient.

The pricing of pharmaceuticals on the PBS and the remuneration for supply of PBS medicines are two separate issues. Although there have been some challenges associated with the implementation of price disclosure (it has been subject to legal challenge) and there is debate about whether this is the most effective way to achieve savings for generic medicines, it is, currently, the dominant policy tool for the Government to reduce the cost of generic medicines. International comparisons show that the Australian Government pays considerably more for generic medicines. And while one needs to exercise caution when comparing the price of pharmaceuticals in different jurisdictions, other countries impose much harsher price reductions than the Australian government when the first generic medicine enters the market. The Australian Government imposes a reduction of only 16%, compared to around 95% achieved by countries such as the UK, Sweden and New Zealand.

Remuneration for pharmacists is governed by the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. The current remuneration for dispensing chemotherapy drugs is $76.37. The Community Pharmacy Chemotherapy Group has estimated that this needs to be increased by $100 per infusion to account for preparation costs, the cost of consumables and dosage delivery services as well as other costs(such as return on capital). It is not possible to independently verify these amounts but the Minister has indicated that she is willing to consider ‘any evidence’ that the costs of delivering chemotherapy drugs needs to be reviewed.

The price cut is due to take effect on 1 December. It is not possible for pharmacists and hospitals to pass on these costs to consumers as the PBS co-payment is enshrined in legislation. Currently there is a stalemate – the Government is arguing that the cost of the medicine must ‘come down’ and stakeholders are concerned that vital services will no longer be delivered. One of the aims of the National Medicines Policy is timely and affordable access to medicines at a price that individuals and the community can afford. Perhaps a review of the cost of dispensing chemotherapy medicines might provide the evidence to inform future remuneration arrangements.

Comments

  • 21/01/2014 2:17 PM
    Martin Butterfield said:

    Perhaps I am thick, but I cannot understand this issue. I suspect it needs a child's primer in how the PBS works as an introduction. Possibly a first step is to explain who is involved in the "price" which is being reduced? A second step could then be to explain the various other steps (mark ups; "service" fees etc) which show how a price reduction ends up with the PBCV (Poor Bloody Cancer Victims) end up paying more! Martin

  • 21/01/2014 2:17 PM
    Rebecca de Boer said:

    Martin, Thanks for your comments. Pharmacists are reimbursed by the Government for medicines dispensed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Pharmacists purchase medicines either directly from the manufacturer or through a pharmaceutical wholesaler. For generic medicines, there is often a difference between the price paid by Government and the price paid by the pharmacist to purchase the medicine. Generic medicines are not protected by patent and are relatively inexpensive to produce. In Australia, generic medicine manufacturers usually offer significant discounts to pharmacists to attract market share. The Government introduced price disclosure as a way of capturing this difference and ensuring that it reaped the savings associated with introduction of generic medicines. In short, manufacturers are required to disclose to government the price at which they sell generic medicines to pharmacists, including any product bundling deals and non-monetary incentives. This information is combined with volume data and the Government then calculates the ‘weighted average reduction’. If this is more than 10%, the government then applies this reduction to the (reimbursement) price that is paid to the pharmacist. For a more detailed explanation of the policy and its application, see this article (1) or the Procedural and Operational Guidelines for Expanded and Accelerated Price Disclosure. You may also be interested in the ‘Pricing Matters’ section on the www.pbs.gov.au website. It is important to note that patients will not pay any additional costs as a result of these changes. The PBS co-payment is determined by legislation and pharmacists are not permitted to charge above the co-payment (unless a premium applies. Less than 10% of brands on the PBS have a premium (2) with the most expensive being $13.44). Currently, the co-payment is $35.40 for general patients and $5.80 for concession card holders. For general patients who are outpatients at public hospitals, the contribution rate is $28.30. The exception to this is Queensland and in hospitals participating in the pharmaceutical reforms where patients pay the safety net value of an item listed in the PBS Schedule or up to the general co-payment amount for items not listed in the Schedule. The contribution by concession card holders in public hospitals is equal to the concessional co-payment amount. Patients in private hospitals will also not be charged extra for medicines dispensed under the PBS (3). The most recent media release from the Minister for Health further reiterates this point (4). PBS pricing is notoriously complex – I hope this brief explanation helps, Rebecca List of references (unable to hyperlink in comments section (1) PBS Reform - a missed opportunity?, Australian Health Review, May 2009, volume 33, number 2: 176-185. (2) See p. 523, Appendix A2, Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority Annual Report for year ended June 2012 included in the Department of Health and Ageing Annual Report 2011-12. (3) See Section 1.4 of 'Explanatory Notes' on the www.pbs.gov.au website for more detail about patient charges. (4) See 'Peter Dutton misleads patients on PBS listing' media release by Minister Plibersek on 28 November 2012.


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

FlagPost

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


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Indigenous Australians Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment taxation Sport illicit drugs people trafficking Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations Asia income management Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget gambling school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA health financing emissions trading Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Industrial Relations dental health National Disability Insurance Scheme slavery Senate election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection people smuggling debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure poker machines ALP New Zealand Australian Crime Commission Newstart Parenting Payment 43rd Parliament political parties Census constitution High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS youth paid parental leave Aviation environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform politics banking firearms public policy mental health China ADRV terrorism social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation governance public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing Productivity asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Population Financial sector national security fuel violence against women domestic violence disability employment Tasmania integrity science research and development Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia accountability housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise Senators and Members climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets health reform Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration health system Australia Greens money laundering servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship human rights housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament citizenship Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking federal election 2010 workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway

Show all
Show less
Back to top