Table 5 Participants responses on the budget analysis, health economic and pharmacoeconomic analysis performed with regard to the STG/EML and health budget

“I am not aware of this exercise being done, it may be done at national” was the general consensus by all participants

“Cost-effective analysis, cost–benefit analysis, cost-minimization analysis. Those are taken into consideration, more especially when looking at the non-EML.”

“That is only done at national. The National department is the one that does that through NEMLC.”

“This is done on an item basis and not on the entire budget.”

At a provincial level they:

“Evaluate outcomes on an input level. We only look at what will be the cost implications, for procuring and making the medicine available.”

“If a member wants to add an item onto the formulary list, the motivation for this item must be submitted with a pharmacoeconomic evaluation” (cost–benefit, effective and minimization analysis)

Some participants stated that they do a cost analysis:

“If the drug is a high cost, we will go to the PTC and try and work on the level of access. If it is expensive we must limit the access—control the level care.”

“We will consider if it reduces the cost of treatment or the cost is the same but there is a better outcome in terms of numbers needed to treat… or the safety profile or the new drug that you are proposing to add to the formulary is better as compared to the previous one that we had.”

“Before you look at pharmacoeconomic evaluation clinical information is the first consideration. The indication, the safety profile of the product, if it is a replacement or addition.”