http://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/services/Feed ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 http://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:7012 Australia’s system for assessing the cost-effectiveness of drugs for listing under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is recognised internationally. A variety of mechanisms, such as evidence based rules for determining eligibility for initial or continuing subsidy, price-volume agreements, rebates, and caps on government expenditure are used to contain PBS expenditures. In this paper we assess the extent of use of special pricing arrangements in Australia and how and where they are communicated to health professionals and the community. We searched publicly available documents published by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority (PBPA). We found 73 medicines where special pricing arrangements had been applied and where prices appearing on the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits might differ from those considered to be “cost-effective” by the PBAC. Reporting of these special pricing agreements was inconsistent and generally non-transparent. In some, the lack of transparency may have reflected the desire of manufacturers to disguise the true negotiated price, lest it weaken their negotiation position in other jurisdictions. 2012-01-30T05:05:49.507Z ]]> http://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:533 To test the effect of a $AU 2 scratch lottery ticket on response rates to a national mailed questionnaire of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists.A randomized controlled trial was conducted and the incentive sent to half of the participants with the first mailing. A single follow-up mailing without incentive was sent to all non-respondents. Survey respondents were then informed of the research question regarding incentives and allowed to withdraw their study data. Differences in response rates between doctors receiving and not receiving the incentive, and between respondents and non-respondents, were examined.The overall response rate was 47% (443 respondents). Twenty-two respondents (5%) withdrew their data after being informed of the research question. Of the remaining 421 respondents, 233 had received the incentive (response rate 49.7%) and 188 had not (40.1%, p = 0.0032). The absolute increase in response rate with the incentive (9.6%, 95%CI 3.2, 15.9) was quantitatively similar in effect to the reminder mailing (11.8%). The incentive had a larger effect among the GP sample compared with specialists (13.4 vs. 5.9%), although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.20). There were no systematic differences in demographic characteristics between respondents and non-respondents.Increased response rates associated with a small incentive may reduce the need for a second mailed reminder, but strong views about the use of incentives may negatively influence the participation of some practitioners. While the overall response rate was low, there was no evidence of bias in our sample. 2010-04-27T05:38:37.920Z ]]>