Pharmaceutical expenditure has increased rapidly across many OECD countries over the past three decades. This growth is an increasing concern for Governments and other third party payers seeking to provide equitable and comprehensive healthcare within sustainable budgets. In order to create headroom for increasing utilisation, and to fund new high cost therapies there is an active push to 'disinvest' from low-value drugs. The aim of this article is to review how reimbursement policy decision makers have sought to partially or completely disinvest from drugs in a range of OECD countries (UK, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) where they are publicly funded or subsidised. We employed a systematic literature search strategy and the incorporation of grey literature known to the authorship team. We canvass key policy instruments from each country to outline: key approaches to the identification of candidate drugs for disinvestment assessment (passive approaches versus more active approaches); Methods of disinvestment and value-based purchasing:de-listing, restricting treatment, price or reimbursement rate reductions, encouraging generic prescribing; Lessons learnt from the various approaches; The potential role of coverage with evidence development, and; The need for careful stakeholder management. Dedicated sections are provided with detailed coverage of policy approaches (with drug examples) from each country. Historically countries have relied on 'passive disinvestment', however due to (i) the availability of new costeffectiveness evidence or (ii) 'leakage' in drug utilisation or (iii) market failure in terms of price competition, there is an increasing focus towards 'active disinvestment'. Isolating low-value drugs that would create headroom for innovative new products to enter the market is also motivating disinvestment efforts by multiple parties, including industry. Historically disinvestment has mainly taken the form of price reductions, especially when market failures are perceived to exist, and restricting treatment to sub-populations, particularly when a drug is no longer considered value for money. There is considerable experimentation internationally in mechanisms for disinvestment and the opportunity for countries to learn from each other. Ongoing evaluation of disinvestment strategies is essential, and ought to be reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

ObjectiveOur study examines the financial cost of lymphedema following a diagnosis of breast cancer and addresses a significant knowledge gap regarding the additional impact of lymphedema on breast cancer survivors.MethodsAn online national survey was conducted with 361 women who had either breast cancer without lymphedema (BC) (group 1, n = 209) or breast cancer with lymphedema (BC+LE) (group 2, n = 152). Participant recruitment was supported by the Breast Cancer Network Australia and the Australasian Lymphology Association.ResultsBoth breast cancer and lymphedema result in significant out‐of‐pocket financial costs borne by women. Of patients with BC+LE, 80% indicated that their breast cancer diagnosis had affected them financially compared with 67% in the BC group (P < .020). For patients with lymphedema, over half (56%) indicated that this specific additional diagnosis to their breast cancer affected them financially and that costs increased with lymphedema severity. The cost of compression garments formed a large proportion of these costs (40.1%). The average number of attendances to a therapist each year was 5.8 (range, 0‐45). Twenty‐five patients (16.4%) had an episode of cellulitis in the past year. The incidence of cellulitis was 7.7% in 91 patients with subclinical or mild lymphedema compared with 29.5% of 61 patients with more extensive lymphedema (P < .001). The average out‐of‐pocket financial cost of lymphedema care borne by women was A$977 per annum, ranging from A$207 for subclinical lymphedema to over A$1400 for moderate or severe lymphedema.ConclusionsThis study identifies an additional detrimental effect of lymphedema on women in terms of financial costs.

The Australian government recently introduced mandatory folic acid fortification of bread to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects (NTDs). The economic evaluation of this policy contained a number of limitations. This study aimed to address the limitations and to reconsider the findings. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to assess the cost and benefits of mandatory versus voluntary folic acid fortification. Outcomes measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained (LYG), avoided NTD cases, and additional severe neuropathy cases. Costs considered included industry costs and regulatory costs to the government. It was estimated that mandatory fortification would prevent 31 NTDs, whereas an additional 14 cases of severe neuropathy would be incurred. Overall, 539 LYG and 503 QALYs would be gained per year of mandatory compared with voluntary fortification. Mandatory fortification was cost-effective at A$10,723 per LYG and at A$11,485 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at A$60,000 and A$151,000 per QALY, the probability that mandatory fortification was the most cost-effective strategy was 79% and 85%, respectively. Threshold analysis of loss of consumer choice indicated that with a compensation value above A$1.21 [assuming a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of A$60,000 per QALY] or A$3.19 (assuming a WTP threshold of A$151,000 per statistical life-year) per capita per year mandatory fortification would not be cost-effective. Mandatory fortification was found to be cost-effective; however, inclusion of the loss of consumer choice can change this result. Even with mandatory fortification, mean folate intake will remain below the recommended NTD preventive level.

There were numerous drivers of the different conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, many of which are due to judgements made by the authors when translating data from RCTs. Many of the potential drivers were not identified by the published systematic reviews of economic evaluations and perhaps more remain unidentified because of inconsistent and limited reporting.

BackgroundThe last year of life is one of the most resource-intensive periods for people with cancer. Very little population-based research has been conducted on end-of-life cancer care in the Australian health care setting. The objective of this program is to undertake a series of observational studies examining resource use, costs and quality of end-of-life care in a cohort of elderly cancer decedents using linked, routinely collected data.Methods/DesignThis study forms part of an ongoing cancer health services research program. The cohorts for the end-of-life research program comprise Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs decedents with full health care entitlements, residing in NSW for the last 18 months of life and dying between 2005 and 2009. We used cancer and death registry data to identify our decedent cohorts and their causes of death. The study population includes 9,862 decedents with a cancer history and 15,483 decedents without a cancer history. The median age at death is 86 and 87 years in the cancer and non-cancer cohorts, respectively. We will examine resource use and associated costs in the last 6 months of life using linked claims data to report on health service use, hospitalizations, emergency department visits and medicines use. We will use best practice methods to examine the nature and extent of resource use, costs and quality of care based on previously published indicators. We will also examine factors associated with these outcomes.DiscussionThis will be the first Australian research program and among the first internationally to combine routinely collected data from primary care and hospital-based care to examine comprehensively end-of-life care in the elderly. The research program has high translational value, as there is limited evidence about the nature and quality of care in the Australian end-of-life setting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0148-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.