Next Article in Journal
Lymphoepithelioma-Like Carcinoma of the Breast: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge
Previous Article in Journal
Outcomes of Surveillance for Contralateral Breast Cancer in Patients Less than Age 60 at the Time of Initial Diagnosis
 
 
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

International Variability in the Reimbursement of Cancer Drugs by Publically Funded Drug Programs

1
University of Toronto, Department of Medicine, Toronto, ON, Canada
2
Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
3
Deeth Williams Wall, LLP, Toronto, ON, Canada
4
Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
5
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre/Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2012, 19(3), 165-176; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.946
Submission received: 2 March 2012 / Revised: 4 April 2012 / Accepted: 6 May 2012 / Published: 1 June 2012

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluate inter-country variability in the reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs, and identify factors such as cost containment measures that may contribute to variability. Methods: As of February 28, 2010, licensed indications for 10 cancer drugs (bevacizumab, bortezomib, cetuximab, erlotinib, imatinib, pemetrexed, rituximab, sorafenib, sunitinib, and trastuzumab) were obtained from the drug registries of 6 licensing authorities corresponding to 13 countries or regions: Australia, Canada (Ontario), England, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States (Medicare Parts B and D). Number of licensed indications reimbursed by public payers and the use of cost containment measures were obtained by survey of health authorities involved in reimbursement and through public documents. Results: The 48 identified licensed indications varied between agencies (range: 36–44 indications). Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States reimbursed the highest percentage of indications (range: 90%–100%). Canada (54%), Australia (46%), Scotland (40%), England (38%), and New Zealand (25%) reimbursed the least. All 5 countries with the lowest rate of reimbursement incorporated a cost-effectiveness analysis into reimbursement decisions and rejected submissions for reimbursement mainly because of lack of cost effectiveness; in New Zealand, lack of cost effectiveness was the second leading cause of rejection after excessive cost. In 9 countries, risk-sharing agreements were used to contain costs. Indications initially not recommended for reimbursement (9 in Australia, 5 in Canada, and 3 in England, New Zealand, and Scotland) were subsequently approved with risk-sharing agreements or special pricing arrangements. Conclusions: Reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs varies globally. The cause is multifactorial.
Keywords: reimbursement; cancer; drugs; risk-sharing agreements reimbursement; cancer; drugs; risk-sharing agreements

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheema, P.K.; Gavura, S.; Migus, M.; Godman, B.; Yeung, L.; Trudeau, M.E. International Variability in the Reimbursement of Cancer Drugs by Publically Funded Drug Programs. Curr. Oncol. 2012, 19, 165-176. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.946

AMA Style

Cheema PK, Gavura S, Migus M, Godman B, Yeung L, Trudeau ME. International Variability in the Reimbursement of Cancer Drugs by Publically Funded Drug Programs. Current Oncology. 2012; 19(3):165-176. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.946

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheema, P.K., S. Gavura, M. Migus, B. Godman, L. Yeung, and M.E. Trudeau. 2012. "International Variability in the Reimbursement of Cancer Drugs by Publically Funded Drug Programs" Current Oncology 19, no. 3: 165-176. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.946

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop