Saving money on the PBS: ranibizumab or bevacizumab for neovascular macular degeneration?

The cost differential between these two drugs is no longer defensible.

A review of proposals to reform the regulation of complementary medicines.

In 2003, the Therapeutic Goods Administration instituted a major recall of products made by Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited. Later that year, an expert committee produced 49 recommendations for complementary medicines reform, many of which were to be implemented by the proposed Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority (ANZTPA). In 2008, the Pan Pharmaceuticals affair reached some conclusion in the courts, the ANZTPA had been abandoned and the case for reform had intensified. There was widespread and increasing use of complementary medicines yet consumers were often unaware that, unlike conventional medicines, these medicines were not evaluated for efficacy. The justification of this two-tiered regulatory system was that complementary medicines are relatively low-risk products. However low risk does not mean no risk. A number of consumers have been shown to use these products for conditions where there is no evidence of effect, potentially placing them at risk. In addition, promotion often overstates their benefits while minimising and sometimes denying known adverse effects and drug interactions. Complaint procedures are overloaded and the "sanctions" available do not deter repeat offenders. A number of regulatory reforms have been suggested to overcome these problems; they are reviewed in this paper.

Commercialism, choice and consumer protection: regulation of complementary medicines in Australia.

Controls on the supply and promotion of complementary medicines in Australia are weak. We used weight-loss products as an example to compare the regulation in Australia of listed complementary medicines and registered pharmaceutical products. Complementary medicines are listed without evaluation for efficacy, while conventional pharmaceutical products are registered after evaluation for quality, safety and efficacy. From 1996 to 2006, over 1000 "weight-loss" products were listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; most contained multiple unevaluated ingredients (herbs, vitamins, minerals) of dubious efficacy. Over the same period, 10 conventional medicines were registered; each contained one evaluated ingredient of proven efficacy. The number of listed weight-loss products (and complaints about their promotion) is increasing. These appear to be a direct consequence of the decision not to evaluate listed products for efficacy and the lower fees for listing a product, compared with registration. Complaint procedures (now overloaded) are no substitute for adequate regulation at the time of market entry. Regulatory reform of listed and homoeopathic products is required.

Pharmaceutical advertisements in prescribing software: an analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess pharmaceutical advertisements in prescribing software, their adherence to code standards, and the opinions of general practitioners regarding the advertisements. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Content analysis of advertisements displayed by Medical Director version 2.81 (Health Communication Network, Sydney, NSW) in early 2005; thematic analysis of a debate on this topic held on the General Practice Computer Group email forum (GPCG_talk) during December 2004. OUTCOME MEASURES: Placement, frequency and type of advertisements; their compliance with the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct, and the views of GPs. RESULTS: 24 clinical functions in Medical Director contained advertisements. These included 79 different advertisements for 41 prescription products marketed by 17 companies, including one generic manufacturer. 57 of 60 (95%) advertisements making a promotional claim appeared noncompliant with one or more requirements of the Code. 29 contributors, primarily GPs, posted 174 emails to GPCG_talk; there was little support for these advertisements, but some concern that the price of software would increase if they were removed. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that pharmaceutical promotion in prescribing software should be banned, and inclusion of independent therapeutic information be mandated.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2003-2004.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) grew by 8% in 2003-04; a slower rate than the 12.0% pa average growth over the last decade. Nevertheless, the sustainability of the Scheme remained an ongoing concern given an aging population and the continued introduction of useful (but increasingly expensive) new medicines. There was also concern that the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement could place further pressure on the Scheme. In 2003, as in 2002, the government proposed a 27% increase in PBS patient co-payments and safety-net thresholds in order to transfer more of the cost of the PBS from the government to consumers. While this measure was initially blocked by the Senate, the forthcoming election resulted in the Labor Party eventually supporting this policy. Recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to list, not list or defer a decision to list a medicine on the PBS were made publicly available for the first time and the full cost of PBS medicines appeared on medicine labels if the price was greater than the co-payment. Pharmaceutical reform in Victorian public hospitals designed to minimise PBS cost-shifting was evaluated and extended to other States and Territories. Programs promoting the quality use of medicines were further developed coordinated by the National Prescribing Service, Australian Divisions of General Practice and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The extensive uptake of computerised prescribing software by GPs produced benefits but also problems. The latter included pharmaceutical promotion occurring at the time of prescribing, failure to incorporate key sources of objective therapeutic information in the software and gross variation in the ability of various programs to detect important drug-drug interactions. These issues remain to be tackled.

Will the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?

The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) contains major concessions to the US pharmaceutical industry that may undermine the egalitarian principles and operation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and substantially increase the costs of medicinal drugs to Australian consumers. AUSFTA's approach to the PBS excessively emphasises the need to reward manufacturers of "innovative" new pharmaceuticals, instead of emphasising consumers' need for equitable and affordable access to necessary medicines (the first principle of our National Medicines Policy). Several features of AUSFTA may bring pressure to bear on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to list "innovative" drugs that the committee initially rejected because the evidence for cost-effectiveness was not compelling. Intellectual property provisions of AUSFTA are likely to delay the entry of PBS cost-reducing generic products when pharmaceutical patents expire. We support the many concerned health and consumer organisations who have asked the Senate either not to pass the enabling legislation, or to delay its passage until a fairer deal in terms of public health can be obtained.