Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia

Qunfei Chen, Martin Hoyle, Varinder Jeet, Yuanyuan Gu (), Kompal Sinha and Bonny Parkinson ()
Additional contact information
Qunfei Chen: Macquarie University
Martin Hoyle: Macquarie University
Varinder Jeet: Macquarie University
Yuanyuan Gu: Macquarie University
Kompal Sinha: Macquarie University
Bonny Parkinson: Macquarie University

PharmacoEconomics, 2025, vol. 43, issue 3, No 4, 283-296

Abstract: Abstract Objective Health technology assessment is used extensively by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to inform medicine funding recommendations in Australia. The PBAC often does not recommend medicines due to uncertainties in economic modelling that result in delaying access to medicines for patients. The systematic identification of which uncertainties can be reduced with alternative evidence or the collection of additional data can help inform recommendations. This study aims to characterise different types of uncertainty in economic models and empirically assess their association with the PBAC recommendations. Methods A framework was developed to characterise four types of uncertainties: methodological, structural, generalisability and parameter uncertainty. The first two types were further subcategorised into parameterisable and unparameterisable uncertainty. Data on uncertainty and other factors were extracted from PBAC’s Public Summary Documents of first submissions for 193 medicine (vaccine)–indication pairs including economic modelling between 2014 and 2021. Logistic regression was used to estimate the average marginal effect of each type of uncertainty on the probability of a positive recommendation. Results The PBAC more often raised issues regarding parameter uncertainty (95%) and parameterisable structural uncertainty (83%) than generalisability uncertainty (48%) and unparameterisable methodological uncertainty (56%). The logistic regression results suggested that the PBAC was more likely to recommend a medicine without unparameterisable methodological, generalisability, and parameterisable structural uncertainty by 15.0%, 10.2 %, and 17.6%, respectively. Parameterisable methodological, unparameterisable structural and parameter uncertainty were not significantly associated with the PBAC recommendations. Conclusions This study identified the uncertainties that had significant associations with PBAC recommendations based on the first submission. This may help improve model quality and reduce resubmissions in the future, thus improving patients’ access to medicines.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z 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:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01446-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

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