QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]
Author:
Keyword(s):
Year:  Vol:  Page: 

   

 

This Article
* Extract Freely available
* Reprint (PDF)
* Submit a response to this article
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me when Comments are posted
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* E-mail this article to a friend
* Similar articles in this journal
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Personal Archive
* Download to Citation Manager
*Reprints & Permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Search for Related Content

Prescription Drugs

Controlling Drug Cost Growth


PROLOGUE: The dramatic rise in life expectancy for Americans over the course of the twentieth century was augured by an explosion of medical innovation and technology that included the development of new drugs aimed at eradicating and lessening the effects of a wide range of life-threatening and debilitating diseases. And with a staggering array of new drugs under development and a growing list of funders willing to underwrite the risky business of developing ever more exotic and more powerful drugs, there seems to be no end in sight to the stream of new drugs that will enter the consumer market over the coming years.

But the sword that has been most effective against the progress of disease is double-edged and also cuts deeply into the budgets of those who are responsible for paying for the health care products for which consumers are clamoring. Private insurers and managed care organizations have been hit particularly hard by this trend, now covering more than 50 percent of the $117 billion spent on prescription drugs in 2000 (up from a 3.5 percent share in 1965). Managed care organizations have responded with a number of mechanisms aimed at controlling pharmaceutical cost growth, but this area continues to pose challenges to the industry.

The two papers that follow offer revealing glimpses of experience with pharmaceutical cost growth in two other nations: Canada and Australia. Unlike the United States, the health care systems of both of these nations are primarily publicly financed. But the basic problem remains the same for both public and private payers: how to allow access to life-saving but expensive innovations without breaking the bank. In the first paper Devidas Menon shows that although Canada has had some success in controlling prices, putting the brakes on overall cost growth has proved more elusive. Donald Birkett, Andrew Mitchell, and Peter McManus then describe Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), which generates a list of pharmaceuticals that are approved for subsidized purchase. The scheme has achieved some of its objectives but has failed to make much headway on cost growth.


Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati    What's this?




Home | Current Issue | Archives | Topic Collections | Search | Blog | Subscribe | Contact Us | Help

© 2001-2001 Project HOPE–The People-to-People Organization
Terms and Policies