Dataset Information

Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite similarities in health systems and Trans-Tasman Harmonization of medicines scheduling, New Zealand is more active than Australia in 'switching' (reclassifying) medicines from prescription to non-prescription.

Objectives

To identify and compare enablers and barriers to switch in New Zealand and Australia.

Methods

We conducted and analyzed 27 in-depth personal interviews with key participants in NZ and Australia and international participants previously located in Australia, and analyzed records of meetings considering switches (2000-2013). Analysis of both sets of data entailed a heuristic qualitative approach that embraced the lead researcher's knowledge and experience.

Results

The key themes identified were conservatism and political influences in Australia, and an open attitude, proactivity and flexibility in NZ. Pharmacist-only medicine schedules and individuals holding a progressive attitude were proposed to facilitate switch in both countries. A pharmacy retail group drove many switches in NZ ('third-party switch'), unlike Australia. Barriers to switch in both countries included small market sizes, funding of prescription medicines and cost of doctor visits, and lack of market exclusivity. In Australia, advertising limitations for pharmacist-only medicines reportedly discouraged industry from submitting switch applications. Perceptions of pharmacy performance could help or hinder switches.

Conclusion

Committee and regulator openness to switch, and confidence in pharmacy appear to influence consumer access to medicines. The pharmacist-only medicine schedule in Australasia and the rise of third-party switch and flexibility in switch in NZ could be considered elsewhere to enable switch.

SUBMITTER: Gauld NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4364766 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand.

Gauld Natalie J NJ Kelly Fiona S FS Emmerton Lynne M LM Buetow Stephen A SA

PloS one 20150318 3

<h4>Background</h4>Despite similarities in health systems and Trans-Tasman Harmonization of medicines scheduling, New Zealand is more active than Australia in 'switching' (reclassifying) medicines from prescription to non-prescription.<h4>Objectives</h4>To identify and compare enablers and barriers to switch in New Zealand and Australia.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted and analyzed 27 in-depth personal interviews with key participants in NZ and Australia and international participants previously loc ...[more]

PMID: 25785589

Similar Datasets

Project description:Switching or reclassifying medicines with established safety profiles from prescription to non-prescription aims to increase timely consumer access to medicines, reduce under-treatment and enhance self-management. However, risks include suboptimal therapy and adverse effects. With a long-standing government policy supporting switching or reclassifying medicines from prescription to non-prescription, the United Kingdom is believed to lead the world in switch, but evidence for this is inconclusive. Interest in switching medicines for certain long-term conditions has arisen in the United Kingdom, United States, and Europe, but such switches have been contentious. The objective of this study was then to provide a comprehensive comparison of progress in switch for medicines across six developed countries: the United States; the United Kingdom; Australia; Japan; the Netherlands; and New Zealand.A list of prescription-to-non-prescription medicine switches was systematically compiled. Three measures were used to compare switch activity across the countries: "progressive" switches from 2003 to 2013 (indicating incremental consumer benefit over current non-prescription medicines); "first-in-world" switches from 2003 to 2013; and switch date comparisons for selected medicines.New Zealand was the most active in progressive switches from 2003 to 2013, with the United Kingdom and Japan not far behind. The United States, Australia and the Netherlands showed the least activity in this period. Few medicines for long-term conditions were switched, even in the United Kingdom and New Zealand where first-in-world switches were most likely. Switch of certain medicines took considerably longer in some countries than others. For example, a consumer in the United Kingdom could self-medicate with a non-sedating antihistamine 19 years earlier than a consumer in the United States.Proactivity in medicines switching, most notably in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, questions missed opportunities to enhance consumers' self-management in countries such as the United States.

Project description:Background:Foot orthoses are frequently used but little is known about which types are used in contemporary practice. This study aimed to explore the types of foot orthoses currently used by podiatrists and the prescription variations in a range of conditions. Methods:A web-based, cross-sectional survey was distributed through professional bodies in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. Questions focussed on foot orthosis prescription habits in relation to 26 conditions affecting the back and lower limb. Results:Two hundred and sixty-four podiatrists practising in 19 different countries completed the survey; the majority practised in the UK (47%, n?=?124), Australia (30%, n?=?79) and New Zealand (12%, n?=?32). Respondents qualified between 1968 and 2016, and 147 (56%) were female. Respondents worked in different healthcare sectors and this varied between countries: 42 (34%) respondents in the UK worked solely in the public sector, compared to 3 (4%) in Australia and 2 (6%) in New Zealand. Forty-four (35%) respondents in the UK worked solely in private practice, compared to 64 (81%) in Australia and 14 (44%) in New Zealand.UK respondents prescribed more prefabricated orthoses per week (mean 5.5 pairs) than simple insole-type devices (±2.7) and customised devices (±2.9). Similarly, respondents in New Zealand prescribed more prefabricated orthoses per week (±7.7) than simple (±1.4) and customised (±2.8) devices. In contrast, those in Australia prescribed more customised orthoses per week (±4.4) than simple (±0.8) and prefabricated (±1.9) orthoses. Differences in the types of orthoses prescribed were observed between country of practice, working sector, and the condition targeted. Generally, prefabricated orthoses were commonly prescribed for the 26 highlighted conditions in the UK and New Zealand. Australian podiatrists prescribed far fewer devices overall, but when they did prescribe, they were more likely to prescribe custom devices. Respondents in all three countries were more likely to prescribe customised orthoses for people with diabetes complicated by peripheral neuropathy than for diabetes without this complication. Conclusions:Foot orthosis prescription habits vary between countries. Prefabricated orthoses were frequently prescribed in the UK and New Zealand, and customised orthoses in Australia. Prescriptions for people with diabetes differed depending on the presence of neuropathy, despite a lack of robust evidence supporting these decisions. This study provides new insight into contemporary practice.

Project description:The objective of pain medicine education is to provide medical students with opportunities to develop their knowledge, skills and professional attitudes that will lead to their becoming safe, capable, and compassionate medical practitioners who are able to meet the healthcare needs of persons in pain. This study was undertaken to identify and describe the delivery of pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand.All 23 medical schools in Australia and New Zealand in 2016 were included in this study. A structured curriculum audit tool was used to obtain information on pain medicine curricula including content, delivery, teaching and assessment methods.Nineteen medical schools (83%) completed the curriculum audit. Neurophysiology, clinical assessment, analgesia use and multidimensional aspects of pain medicine were covered by most medical schools. Specific learning objectives for pain medicine were not identified by 42% of medical schools. One medical school offered a dedicated pain medicine module delivered over 1 week. Pain medicine teaching was delivered at all schools by a number of different departments throughout the curriculum. Interprofessional learning (IPL) in the context of pain medicine education was not specified by any of the medical schools. The mean time allocated for pain medicine teaching over the entire medical course was just under 20 h. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was used by 32% of schools to assess knowledge and skills in pain medicine. 16% of schools were unsure of whether any assessment of pain medicine education took place.This descriptive study provides important baseline information for pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand. Medical schools do not have well-documented or comprehensive pain curricula that are delivered and assessed using pedagogically-sound approaches considering the complexity of the topic, the prevalence and public health burden of pain.

Project description:BackgroundAround the world government agencies responsible for the selection and reimbursement of prescribed medicines and other health technologies are considering how best to bring community preferences into their decision making. In particular, community views about the distribution or equity of funding across the population. These official committees and agencies often have access to the best available and latest evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety and cost from large clinical trials and population-based studies. All too often they do not have access to high quality evidence about community views. We therefore, conducted a large and representative population-based survey in Australia to determine what community members think about the factors that do and should influence government spending on prescribed medicines.MethodsA choice-based survey was designed to elicit the importance of individual criteria when considering the equity of government spending on prescribed medicines. A representative sample of 3080 adult Australians completed the survey by allocating a hypothetical budget to different combinations of money spent on two patient populations. Societal preferences were inferred from absolute majority responses i.e. populations with more than 50% of respondents' allocation for a particular allocation criterion.ResultsThis study shows that, all else being equal, severity of disease, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off, and life-style unrelated diseases are supported by the public as resource allocation criteria. Where 'all else is not equal', participants allocated more resources to the patient population that gained considerable improvement in health and fewer resources to those that gained little improvement in health. This result held under all scenarios except for 'end-of-life treatments'. Responses to cost (and corresponding number of patients treated) trade-off scenarios indicated a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents choosing to divide resources equally and a shift in preference towards devoting resources to the population that were more costly to treat for all criteria with the exception of severity of disease.ConclusionsThe general public have clear views on what's fair in terms of government spending on prescribed medicines. In addition to supporting the application of the 'rule of rescue', important considerations for government spending included the severity of disease being treated, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off and life-style unrelated diseases. This study shows that the general public are willing to share their views on what constitutes an equitable allocation of the government's drug budget. The challenge remains to how best to consider those views alongside clinical and economic considerations.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Across the world, health systems are adopting approaches to manage rising healthcare costs. One common strategy is a medication copayments scheme where consumers make a contribution (copayment) towards the cost of their dispensed medicines, with remaining costs subsidised by the health insurance service, which in Australia is the Federal Government.In Australia, copayments have tended to increase in proportion to inflation, but in January 2005, the copayment increased substantially more than inflation. Results from aggregated dispensing data showed that this increase led to a significant decrease in the use of several medicines. The aim of this study is to determine the demographic and clinical characteristics of individuals ceasing or reducing statin medication use following the January 2005 Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) copayment increase and the effects on their health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This whole-of-population study comprises a series of retrospective, observational investigations using linked administrative health data on a cohort of West Australians (WA) who had at least one statin dispensed between 1 May 2002 and 30 June 2010. Individual-level data on the use of pharmaceuticals, general practitioner (GP) visits, hospitalisations and death are used.This study will identify patients who were stable users of statin medication in 2004 with follow-up commencing from 2005 onwards. Subgroups determined by change in adherence levels of statin medication from 2004 to 2005 will be classified as continuation, reduction or cessation of statin therapy and explored for differences in health outcomes and health service utilisation after the 2005 copayment change. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approvals have been obtained from the Western Australian Department of Health (#2007/33), University of Western Australia (RA/4/1/1775) and University of Notre Dame (0?14?167F). Outputs from the findings will be published in peer reviewed journals designed for a policy audience and presented at state, national and international conferences.

Project description:BackgroundAustralia has had a framework for legal medicinal cannabis since 2016, yet prior online surveys in 2016 and 2018 indicated that most consumers continued to use illicit medical cannabis products. Regulatory data indicate an increase in the prescription of medicinal cannabis since 2019, and this survey examines consumer experiences of prescribed and illicit medical cannabis (MC) use in Australia.MethodsA cross-sectional anonymous online survey was administered September 2020 to January 2021. Recruitment via social media, professional and consumer forums, and medical practices. Participant eligibility: ≥ 18 years; used a cannabis product for self-identified medical reason(s) in the past year, and resident in Australia. Outcome measures included consumer characteristics, conditions treated, source and patterns of MC use, and perspectives on accessing MC.ResultsOf the 1600 participants (mean age 46.4 ± 14.3 years, 53% male), 62.4% (n = 999) reported using only illicit and 37.6% (n = 601) used prescribed MC in the past year. MC was used on a median of 28 (IQR: 12, 28) of the past 28 days and cost $AUD 74 ± 72 weekly (median = $40, IQR: $7, $100). Prescribed participants were more likely to treat pain conditions than those using illicit MC (52% v 40%, OR = 1.7, 1.3-2.1) and less likely to treat sleep conditions (6% v 11%, OR = 0.5, 0.3-0.8), with mental health conditions also a common indication in both groups (26%, 31%). Prescribed MC was consumed predominately by oral routes (72%), whereas illicit MC was most commonly smoked (41%). Prescribed MC was 'mainly THC' (26%), 'equal THC/CBD' (40%), 'mainly CBD' (31%) and 'uncertain' (3%), while 34% of those using illicit MC were 'uncertain' of the cannabinoid profile. Cost and difficulties finding medical practitioners to prescribe remain significant barriers to accessing prescribed MC, and few (10.8%) described the existing model for accessing prescribed MC as 'straightforward or easy'.ConclusionsThere has been a notable shift from illicit to prescribed MC by many consumers compared to prior surveys. Consumers using prescribed MC reported a range of advantages compared to illicit MC, including safer routes of administration, and greater certainty regarding access and composition of products.

Project description:AimThe aim of this scoping review was to determine the extent of off-patent prescription medicine use beyond registered indications in various Australian clinical settings.MethodThe review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and reported using PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Online databases were used to identify published literature about off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications in Australian public hospital, community and primary healthcare settings. In addition, empirical data from the Queensland and the South Australian state-wide medicine formularies were screened for the same medication/off-label indication dyads identified in the literature, and other locally approved uses.ResultsOverall, fourteen studies were included, conducted in public hospitals (n = 11), palliative care units (n = 2) and the community setting (n = 1). There were 213 reports extracted from the literature describing off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications, representing 128 unique medication/off-label indication dyads and 32 different medicines. Of these, just five medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both the Queensland and South Australian state-wide medicine formularies, with 12 others only approved for use in Queensland and 16 others only approved for use in South Australia. Further examination of these state-wide formularies demonstrated that the use of off-patent registered prescription medicines beyond registered indications is more extensive than has been reported to date in the literature. There were 28 additional medication/off-label indication dyads approved on the Queensland state-wide medicine formulary and 14 such examples approved for use in South Australia. Of these, just two medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both formularies.ConclusionThe extent to which off-patent registered prescription medicines have been repurposed in clinical settings for off-label indications in Australia is greater than previously reported in the literature. Usage and funded availability of certain medication/off-label indication dyads, varies across Australia. These results further expose the two tiered system of medicines regulation in Australia, and its impact on equity of access to medicines. Further research is required to support policy change to encourage submission of registration updates for off-patent prescription medicines.

Dataset Information

Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets