IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v13y2015i3p291-302.html

Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Drugs in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia: Should the United States Take Notice?

Author

Listed:
  • George Dranitsaris

  • George Papadopoulos

Abstract

Cancer remains a global problem, with 7.5 million deaths annually, making it responsible for approximately 13 % of deaths from all causes. Cancer also becomes more prevalent as the population ages, making it a major health policy challenge for many countries around the world. However, the encouraging news is that the number of cancer-related deaths has stabilized in many countries. At least part of this success may be attributed to improved diagnosis, early intervention strategies and the development of a newer class of anticancer agents, collectively called “targeted therapies”, that are more specific in inhibiting key pathways in tumour genesis. However, these newer drugs are associated with a higher cost. As a result, expenditures for agents and cancer in general have been rising rapidly, far beyond the rate of inflation. Some view this as threatening the very health care systems themselves, which are integral to the modern social contract. Different countries have adopted unique mechanisms to facilitate patient access to these newer agents, with the intent of ensuring value for money and sustainability. In this review, cancer care policies and mechanisms for patient access to new drugs will be discussed and compared between select countries. Given its position as a country that allows free pharmaceutical pricing and multi-payer health insurance, the USA will be the reference country and will be compared with the UK, Canada and Australia, three countries with socialized health care systems and active health technology assessment programmes. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Suggested Citation

  • George Dranitsaris & George Papadopoulos, 2015. "Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Drugs in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia: Should the United States Take Notice?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 291-302, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:13:y:2015:i:3:p:291-302
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-014-0130-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40258-014-0130-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-014-0130-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Jeffrey Clemens & Joshua D. Gottlieb, 2017. "In the Shadow of a Giant: Medicare’s Influence on Private Physician Payments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 1-39.
    3. Douglas W. Elmendorf, 2011. "Testimony on CBO's Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010," Reports 22077, Congressional Budget Office.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    2. Ashantha Ranasinghe & Xuejuan Su, 2023. "When social assistance meets market power: A mixed duopoly view of health insurance in the United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 851-869, October.
    3. Jonas Heese, 2017. "The Role of Overbilling in Hospitals’ Earnings Management Decisions," Harvard Business School Working Papers 18-026, Harvard Business School.
    4. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    5. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    6. Refoios Camejo, Rodrigo & McGrath, Clare & Herings, Ron, 2011. "A dynamic perspective on pharmaceutical competition, drug development and cost effectiveness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 18-24, April.
    7. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    8. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    9. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    10. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    11. Nadja Chernyak & Heribert Sattel & Marsel Scheer & Christina Baechle & Johannes Kruse & Peter Henningsen & Andrea Icks, 2014. "Economic Evaluation of Brief Psychodynamic Interpersonal Therapy in Patients with Multisomatoform Disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-4, January.
    12. Lidia García-Pérez & Ignacio Abásolo-Alessón & Miguel Ángel Negrín-Hernández, 2026. "Exploring the Generalizability of Foreign Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Spain Using Data From a Scoping Review of Multinational Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 43-60, January.
    13. Catherine Pitt & Catherine Goodman & Kara Hanson, 2016. "Economic Evaluation in Global Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recent Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 9-28, February.
    14. Md. Tajuddin Khan & Avinash Kishore & P.K. Joshi, 2016. "Gender Dimensions on Farmers’ Preferences for Direct-Seeded Rice with Drum Seeder in India," Working Papers id:11274, eSocialSciences.
    15. Daphne C. Voormolen & Judith A. M. Bom & Esther W. de Bekker-Grob & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Job van Exel, 2024. "Development and Content Validation of the 10-item Well-being Instrument (WiX) for use in Economic Evaluation Studies," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 19(2), pages 381-413, April.
    16. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    17. Ângela J. Ben & Jeruza L. Neyeloff & Camila F. Souza & Ana Paula O. Rosses & Aline L. Araujo & Adriana Szortika & Franciele Locatelli & Gabriela Carvalho & Cristina R. Neumann, 2020. "Cost-utility Analysis of Opportunistic and Systematic Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Strategies from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 57-68, February.
    18. Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Amanda L. Neil & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle C. Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia: Construction and Validation of a State-Transition Cost-Effectiveness Model," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 37-51, March.
    19. Christopher Fitzpatrick & Katherine Floyd, 2012. "A Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, January.
    20. Wei Zhang & Huiying Sun & Simon Woodcock & Aslam H. Anis, 2017. "Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:13:y:2015:i:3:p:291-302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.