Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Financial costs associated with monopolies on biologic medicines in Australia

dc.contributor.authorGleeson, Deborah
dc.contributor.authorTownsend, Belinda
dc.contributor.authorLopert, Ruth
dc.contributor.authorLexchin, Joel
dc.contributor.authorMoir, Hazel
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-31T01:24:50Z
dc.date.available2019-05-31T01:24:50Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.date.updated2019-03-17T07:17:11Z
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of the study was to estimate the potential savings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) in 2015–16 if biosimilar versions of selected biologic medicines (biologics) had been available and listed on the PBS. Methods: The research involved retrospective analysis of Australian Medicare expenditure data and PBS price data from 2015–16 for biologics, for which biosimilar competition may be available in future, listed on the PBS. Results: Australian Government expenditure on biologics on the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars in 2015–16. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS in 2015–16, at least A$367 million dollars would have been saved in PBS and RPBS subsidies. Modelling based on price decreases following listing of biosimilars on the PBS suggests that annual PBS outlays on biologics could be reduced by as much as 24% through the timely introduction of biosimilars. Conclusions: Biologic medicines represent a large proportion of government expenditure on pharmaceuticals. Reducing the length of monopoly protections on these medicines could generate savings of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. What is known about the topic? Biologics take up an increasing share of pharmaceutical expenditure, but no previous published studies have examined Australian Government expenditure on biologics or the potential savings from reducing the duration of monopoly protection. What does this paper add? This paper provides new evidence about Australian Government expenditure on biologics and potential savings for selected medicines that are still subject to monopoly protection and thus are not yet subject to biosimilar competition. In 2015–16 Australian Government expenditure on biologics through the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS at that time, at least A$367 million dollars would have been saved. What are the implications for practitioners? Reducing the duration of monopoly protection on biologic medicines could save hundreds of millions of dollars annually that could be redirected to other areas of the healthcare system.en_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was supported by a grant from the School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University.en_AU
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn0156-5788en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/163748
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.provenanceOpen Access CC BY-NC-NDen_AU
dc.publisherAustralian Hospital Associationen_AU
dc.rights© AHHA 2019en_AU
dc.rights.licenseAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)en_AU
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_AU
dc.sourceAustralian Health Reviewen_AU
dc.titleFinancial costs associated with monopolies on biologic medicines in Australiaen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage42en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage36en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationGleeson, Deborah, La Trobe Universityen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationTownsend, Belinda, College of Asia and the Pacific, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationLopert, Ruth, George Washington Universityen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationLexchin, Joel, York Universityen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationMoir, Hazel, College of Arts and Social Sciences, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidTownsend, Belinda, u1040233en_AU
local.contributor.authoruidMoir, Hazel, u4098733en_AU
local.description.notesImported from ARIESen_AU
local.identifier.absfor160508 - Health Policyen_AU
local.identifier.absseo920207 - Health Policy Economic Outcomesen_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationu4485658xPUB357en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume43en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1071/AH17031en_AU
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85049323346
local.publisher.urlhttps://www.publish.csiro.au/en_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Gleeson_Financial_costs_associated_2019.pdf
Size:
170.66 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format