The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Problems With the Interpretation of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: A Review of Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Abstract
CONTEXT: Pharmacoeconomic analyses are being used increasingly as the basis for reimbursement of the costs of new drugs. Reports of these analyses are often published in peer-reviewed journals. However, the analyses are complex and difficult to evaluate. OBJECTIVE: To describe the nature of problems encountered in the evaluation and interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses used as a basis for reimbursement decisions. DATA SOURCES: All major submissions to the Department of Health and Aged Care (DHAC) by the pharmaceutical industry for funding made under the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Specifically, the DHAC's database of submissions that were received between January 1994 and December 1997 were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Of a total of 326 submissions, 218 had serious problems of interpretation and were included in the analysis. The nature of the serious problems reviewed were classified as estimates of comparative clinical efficacy, comparator issues, modeling issues, and calculation errors. DATA EXTRACTION: All submissions in the DHAC's database were reviewed and data were extracted if both the DHAC evaluators and technical subcommittee considered problems to have a significant bearing on the decisions of the parent committee. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of a total of 326 submissions, 218 (67%) had significant problems and 31 had more than 1 problem. Of the 249 problems identified, 154 (62%) related to uncertainty in the estimates of comparative clinical efficacy, and 71 (28.5%) related to modeling issues, which included clinical assumptions or cost estimates, used in the construction of the economic models. There were 15 instances of disagreement over the choice of comparator, and serious calculation errors were found on 9 occasions. Overall, 159 problems (64%) were considered to be avoidable. CONCLUSIONS: Significant problems were identified in these pharmacoeconomic analyses. The intensive evaluation process used in the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme allowed for identification and correction of pharmacoecomomic analysis problems, but the resources that are required may be beyond the capacity of many organizations, including peer-reviewed journals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Cited by
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147
Industry sponsorship and research outcome
Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000033.pub3 · Cited by 1,697
Examining the Value and Quality of Health Economic Analyses: Implications of Utilizing the QHES
Ofman, J. J., Sullivan, S. D., Neumann, P. J., Chiou, C.-F., Henning, J. M., Wade, S. W., & Hay, J. W. (2003) · Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.1.53 · Cited by 366
Development and Validation of a Grading System for the Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Chiou, C.-F., Hay, J. W., Wallace, J. F., Bloom, B. S., Neumann, P. J., Sullivan, S. D., Yu, H.-T., Keeler, E. B., Henning, J. M., & Ofman, J. J. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200301000-00007 · Cited by 311
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)
Lavis, J. N., Oxman, A. D., Lewin, S., & Fretheim, A. (2009) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-i1 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Hill, S. R., Mitchell, A. S., & Henry, D. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-04-26
- Volume
- 283
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 2116
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2144694316
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 54.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Problems With the Interpretation of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: A Review of Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.283.16.2116
- The paper
- Hill, S. R., Mitchell, A. S., & Henry, D. A. (2000). Problems With the Interpretation of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: A Review of Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.16.2116
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.