A successful practical application of Coverage with Evidence Development in Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee interim funding and the PillCam Capsule Endoscopy Register.

BACKGROUND: In August 2002, an application for the listing on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) of PillCam Capsule Endoscopy (formally M2A) as a diagnostic procedure for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) was made to the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). As a result of this application, in May 2004 PillCam Capsule Endoscopy was approved with interim funding until April 2007. This funding was conditional on the collection of Australian data on the long-term safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of capsule endoscopy. METHODS: A review was conducted of how the data were collected, the methodological difficulties associated with the collection and analysis of the data, and the outcomes of the data. RESULTS: The PillCam Capsule Endoscopy Register ran from 2004 to 2007 and amassed data on 4,099 patients forming the largest database on PillCam in the world. Based on these data, in November 2007, MSAC recommended that full public funding be supported under the current MBS Item Number 11820 as capsule endoscopy is as safe as and more effective than comparable diagnostic tests. It is the preferred choice of patients and has the potential to reduce the number and cost of previous investigations. CONCLUSIONS: This form of CED proved to be ideally suited to PillCam Capsule Endoscopy. The PillCam Capsule Endoscopy Register provided data that made it possible to validate assumptions used in the economic modeling in the assessment carried out for MSAC in response to the application for funding. DISCUSSION: The use of interim funding requires both risk and cost sharing among the key players: industry, government, the medical profession, and the hospitals. Although the characteristics of PillCam Capsule Endoscopy proved to be suited to data collection, this may not be the case with other emerging health technologies. If interim funding coupled with data collection is to become an effective mechanism for bridging the evidence gap, work needs to be carried out by health technology assessment agencies to provide guidance on the design of registers so that they cater for the unique characteristics of individual procedures.

Horizon scanning of new and emerging medical technology in Australia: its relevance to Medical Services Advisory Committee health technology assessments and public funding.

OBJECTIVES: In 1998, a formal process using full health technology assessments (HTAs) was implemented to determine the suitability for public subsidy of new and emerging medical technologies in the Australian private healthcare sector. This process is overseen by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). In 2004, horizon scanning was introduced in Australia with the stated objective of identifying new and emerging medical technologies into the public healthcare sector, with consideration to the publicly subsidized private healthcare sector. How well horizon scanning works in identifying new and emerging technologies suitable for government subsidized funding in the private healthcare sector is examined in this study. METHODS: A descriptive evaluation of the impact of horizon scanning as an early alert and awareness system identifying new and emerging technologies before these technologies are submitted to MSAC for a full HTA. All MSAC HTAs commenced after the introduction of horizon scanning in 2004 were cross-checked with the list of Prioritizing Summaries or Horizon Scanning Reports to determine whether a prior Prioritizing Summary or Horizon Scanning Report had been carried out. RESULTS: Of the forty-three technologies that were the subject of a full MSAC HTAs in the time period examined, only eleven had been the subject of either a Prioritizing Summary or Horizon Scanning Report. As a result of a full MSAC HTA, twelve of the technologies that were not the subject of a Prioritizing Summary or Horizon Scanning Report were given positive recommendations for public funding. CONCLUSIONS: Horizon scanning was set up to scan the introduction of new and emerging medical technologies into the public healthcare sector, with consideration to the publicly subsidized private healthcare sector. Based on the number of new and emerging technologies that have been the subject of a full MSAC HTA without first being subjected to either a Prioritizing Summary or Horizon Scanning Report, horizon scanning in Australia does not function as an "early alert and awareness system" for funding in the publicly subsidized private healthcare sector in Australia.

Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: In April 1998, the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) was established by the Australian federal government. Since that time, all new medical procedures must be evaluated for safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness as a condition of the surgeon receiving public funding by means of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). Over these first 8 years, a significant number of applications for the public funding of new procedures have been given negative recommendations by the MSAC based on insufficient clinical evidence or lack of cost-effectiveness. In August 2006, after almost 2 years of processing, the MSAC made the decision to fund the new procedure, laparoscopic remotely assisted radical prostatectomy (LRARP). However, they stated that there was still uncertainty about the comparative cost-effectiveness. METHODS: An observational study using provisional cost-utility data for LRARP based on a combination of costs taken from consecutive patients at the Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and utilities from the prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing surgery for prostate cancer over a 4-year period at the Vattikuti Urology Institute, Michigan, United States. RESULTS: The incremental cost for LRARP compared with the open surgery alternative is A$2,264 or A$24,457 per quality-adjusted life-year, well below the range accepted by the Australian pharmaceutical equivalent of the MSAC (the PBAC) of A$42,000 and A$76,000. This figure does not take into account additional benefits such as reduced time away from employment, reduced blood loss, reduced possibility of infection, and reduced scarring. CONCLUSIONS: This case study of LRARP demonstrates that there is sufficient crude evidence to show that this new procedure is likely to be superior to the existing procedure in terms of safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The decision to allow MBS funding was correct and will allow for the collection of additional evidence, on both economic and clinical outcomes.