科研之友
微信
新浪微博
Facebook
分享链接
摘要
Two decades ago Australia introduced an assessment of value as a prerequisite for adding new medicines to its national drug formulary. Australia%26apos;s program-a %26quot;fourth hurdle%26quot; process after a drug is assessed for safety, efficacy, and quality-stands in stark contrast to the situation in the United States, where comparing the clinical and economic value of a proposed new drug to those of existing ones only rarely plays a role in the drug coverage determination process. This article describes the role that Australia%26apos;s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, a statutory independent expert committee, plays in determining which new drugs the government will help pay for in the nation%26apos;s pharmaceutical benefit program. The program does not directly control drug prices or ration prescription drugs-policy options that are widely opposed in the United States. Australia%26apos;s program supports patients%26apos; access to important, innovative medications deemed to be cost-effective. The US system could benefit if policy makers examined Australia%26apos;s experience and adopted a comparative clinical and value review suited to the US political and economic landscape.
