Uptake of and Expenditure on Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for Hepatitis C Treatment in Australia

Barbara de Graaff (), Kwang Chien Yee, Philip Clarke and Andrew Palmer
Additional contact information
Barbara de Graaff: University of Tasmania
Kwang Chien Yee: University of Tasmania
Philip Clarke: University of Melbourne
Andrew Palmer: University of Tasmania

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2018, vol. 16, issue 4, No 6, 495-502

Abstract: Abstract Background Direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) have revolutionised treatment for the hepatitis C virus (HCV). Currently, treatment costs between 20,000 and 80,000 Australian dollars ($A) per patient. The Australian Federal Government provided $A1 billion over 5 years to subsidise these drugs. Objective The aim of this paper was to evaluate the uptake and financial impact of DAA prescribing in Australia. Methods We undertook a retrospective analysis of Medicare prescription and expenditure data for March 2016 to August 2017. Prescription numbers and expenditure data were extracted from the Medicare Statistical Reports website. Numbers of prescriptions were converted to per capita rates. HCV prevalence measures were used to provide context to prescription rates. All costs were reported in $A, year 2017 values. Results Nationally, 211,184 DAA prescriptions were reimbursed. Whilst $A3.6 billion was expended through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, confidential pricing agreements precluded calculation of the precise cost. In 18 months, estimated expenditure greatly exceeded the $A1 billion in funding for 5 years. Nationally, the rate of prescriptions was 872/100,000 individuals. Prescription rates were highest in the Australian Capital Territory (1087/100,000) and lowest in Western Australia (625/100,000) despite HCV prevalence being comparable to the national rate in both regions. Conclusions Uptake of DAAs has been enthusiastic in the first 18 months of this funding agreement. However, the lack of transparency due to the confidential special pricing agreements means actual government expenditure is unknown. Post-marketing review by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee may enable renegotiation of DAA prices with the sponsors.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0392-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0392-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0392-8

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().