The Australian national publicly subsidized: DISCUSSION(2)
The structure and process of the Australian system have been criticized in the past five years. The pharmaceutical industry has viewed the PBAC system as a method of containing costs and reducing industry profit as well as imposing requirements for additional data. The highly controlled market for pharmaceuticals is said to inhibit industrial development and keep certain pharmaceuticals off the Australian market. Australia does not have a well developed pharmaceutical industry. The government’s ‘factor f scheme’ was an incentive scheme to encourage multinationals to develop manufacturing and research and development in Australia, but this has been revised, and it is too early to assess the impact of the new scheme. The profession has also been critical of the decisions at times, and this may reflect one of the disadvantages of a national system – the loss of consideration of local factors in the overall decision-making process. Although the PBAC is able to consult with expert societies as it wishes, in practice, this has been constrained by the secrecy provisions of the National Health Act that require that data submitted to the committee be considered in confidence. Buy Asthma Inhalers Online
The Canadian provinces and territories increasingly have to finance a larger share of their health care costs and are responsible for deficit reduction, including budget capping. The establishment of a national collaboration could occur with provinces delegating authority to a national body. It could allow for a national buying strategy and a centralization of drug evaluations. The Gagnon report released in 1992 recommended a more national approach to pharmaceuticals, including a strong postmarketing surveillance system and a National Advisory Council on Medicines .
Tags: Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Canadian health care, Pharmaceutical policy, Pharmacoeconomics