International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 895–897 | Cite as

Hospital Drug and Therapeutics Committees in Australia: is there a role for economic evaluation at the institutional level?

  • Gisselle GallegoEmail author


Decisions about spending on medicines occur at different levels in the Australian health care system. This commentary describes the role of economic evaluation at the institutional (public hospital) level. In contrast to the decisions taken at the level of Federal subsidy (listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) formal pharmacoeonomic data analyses are usually not available, and arguably often not relevant to decision making within the public hospital setting. Future research is needed to develop and explore models of best practice and how to incorporate pharmacoeconomic evidence into local decisions.


Australia DTCs Economic evaluation Hospitals Pharmaceuticals 



I would like to thank Professor Jo-anne Brien for her comments on an earlier version of this commentary.



Conflicts of interests



  1. 1.
    Salkeld G, Mitchell A, Hill S. Pharmaceuticals. In: Mooney G, Scotton R, editors. Economics and Australian health policy. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 1999. p. 115–36.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia. Canberra 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallego G, Taylor SJ, Brien JA. Provision of pharmaceuticals in Australian hospitals: equity of access? Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(2):47–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallego G, Taylor SJ, Brien JA. Funding and access to high cost medicines in public hospitals in Australia: decision-makers’ perspectives. Health Policy. 2009;92(1):27–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holloway K, Green T. Drug and Therapeutics Committees—a practical guide (WHO/EDM/PAR/2004.1). Geneva: World Health Organization 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan EL, Day RO, Brien JA. Prioritising Drug and Therapeutics Committee (DTC) decisions: a national survey. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(2):90–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sansom L. The subsidy of pharmaceuticals in Australia: processes and challenges. Aust Health Rev. 2004;28(2):194–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weekes LM, Brooks C. Drug and Therapeutics Committees in Australia: expected and actual performance. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;42(5):551–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Gool K, Gallego G, Haas M, Hall J, Viney R, RW. Incorporating economic evidence into cancer care: searching for the missing link, CHERE Working Paper 2007/3. Sydney: CHERE 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cancer Institute New South Wales (NSW). Review of Ambulatory/Outpatient Chemotherapy and Haematology Services in New South Wales 2005. [cited 31 May 2007]; Available from:
  11. 11.
    Editorial Executive Committee. Transparency—in the eye of the beholder. Aust Prescr. 2005;28:83–4.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marley J. Cost-effectiveness: the need to know. Aust Prescr. 1996;19:58–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallego G, Melocco T, Taylor S, Brien J. Access to high-cost drugs: decision makers’ perspectives. J Pharm Pract Res. 2005;35(1):18–20.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin D, Hollenberg D, MacRae S, Madden S, Singer P. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy. 2003;66(3):295–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eddama O, Coast J. Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation. Health Policy. 2009;89(3):261–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anell A, Svarvar P. Pharmacoeconomics and clinical practice guidelines. A survey of attitudes in Swedish formulary committees. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(2):175–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 2000;52(3):179–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peacock S, Ruta D, Mitton C, Donaldson C, Bate A, Murtagh M. Using economics to set pragmatic and ethical priorities. BMJ. 2006;332(7539):482–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Gool K, Gallego G, Haas M, Viney R, Hall J, Ward R. Economic evidence at the local level: options for making it more useful. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(12):1055–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Population Health, School of MedicineUniversity of Western SydneyPenrithAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations