MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767217222 · doi:10.1071/ah17031

Financial costs associated with monopolies on biologic medicines in Australia

2017· article· en· W2767217222 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Gleeson, Belinda Townsend, Ruth Lopert, Joel Lexchin, Hazel V. J. Moir

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersLa Trobe University
KeywordsPharmaceutical Benefits SchemeBiosimilarGovernment (linguistics)MonopolyListing (finance)Health economicsSubsidyMedicinePublic economicsBusinessHealth careFinanceEconomicsPharmacologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The aim of the study was to estimate the potential savings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) in 2015-16 if biosimilar versions of selected biologic medicines (biologics) had been available and listed on the PBS. Methods The research involved retrospective analysis of Australian Medicare expenditure data and PBS price data from 2015-16 for biologics, for which biosimilar competition may be available in future, listed on the PBS. Results Australian Government expenditure on biologics on the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars in 2015-16. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS in 2015-16, at least A$367million dollars would have been saved in PBS and RPBS subsidies. Modelling based on price decreases following listing of biosimilars on the PBS suggests that annual PBS outlays on biologics could be reduced by as much as 24% through the timely introduction of biosimilars. Conclusions Biologic medicines represent a large proportion of government expenditure on pharmaceuticals. Reducing the length of monopoly protections on these medicines could generate savings of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. What is known about the topic? Biologics take up an increasing share of pharmaceutical expenditure, but no previous published studies have examined Australian Government expenditure on biologics or the potential savings from reducing the duration of monopoly protection. What does this paper add? This paper provides new evidence about Australian Government expenditure on biologics and potential savings for selected medicines that are still subject to monopoly protection and thus are not yet subject to biosimilar competition. In 2015-16 Australian Government expenditure on biologics through the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS at that time, at least A$367million dollars would have been saved. What are the implications for practitioners? Reducing the duration of monopoly protection on biologic medicines could save hundreds of millions of dollars annually that could be redirected to other areas of the healthcare system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207