Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Public and Decision Maker Stated Preferences for Pharmaceutical Subsidy Decisions: A Pilot Study

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jennifer A. Whitty

    (School of Medicine, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Logan, Queensland, Australia)

  • Paul A. Scuffham

    (School of Medicine, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Logan, Queensland, Australia)

  • Sharyn R. Rundle-Thiele

    (Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Background: Consideration of public preferences is desirable when making decisions on the subsidy of pharmaceuticals. Little is known about the preferences of the public for pharmaceutical funding decisions, and no study has directly compared the preferences of members of a pharmaceutical decision-making body with those of the public on whose behalf decisions are made. Objective: This article reports the findings of a pilot discrete-choice experiment (DCE) undertaken to test the concept of evaluating the consistency of public and decision maker preferences for the public subsidy of pharmaceuticals. Methods: A DCE was used to elicit the relative importance of gains in survival, quality of life (QOL), chance of response success and government costs in pharmaceutical funding decisions, and the impact that the initial severity of illness has on preferences. The DCE was administered to a sample of the Australian public and members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and its Economic Subcommittee. A mixed logit model was employed for analysis. Results: For both samples, increased survival, QOL and chance of response success, and a reduction in cost or uncertainty (decision makers only), increased the likelihood that a pharmaceutical would be chosen for funding. Both samples were more likely to fund a pharmaceutical that was used for the treatment of severe illness. Conclusion: This study sets the foundation for future research on the relative importance of decision criteria, the contexts that impact on the criteria and the extent to which funding decisions for pharmaceuticals in Australia and elsewhere are consistent with the preferences of society.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://healtheconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/ahe/pdfhandler.00148365-201109020-00002.pdf
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL: http://healtheconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/ahe/fulltext.00148365-201109020-00002.htm
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

    Volume (Year): 9 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 73-79

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:9:y:2011:i:2:p:73-79

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://healtheconomics.adisonline.com/

    Related research

    Keywords: Conjoint-analysis; Formularies; Reimbursement; Social-preference;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:9:y:2011:i:2:p:73-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.