Performance by type of product assessment

The APVMA also monitors performance for:

• major and non-technical assessments
• applications by individual item number.

Major and non-technical assessments

Major assessments have assessment periods over three months and require one or more technical assessments. Includes item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 14.

Non-technical assessments have assessment periods of three months or less. Includes item numbers 7, 8, 9, 10A, 12, 13 and 13A.

The following charts?show the workload and performance of applications by assessment type processed by the APVMA between July 2015 and June 2016.

The majority of applications (66 per cent) processed by the APVMA are non-technical. The break up between pesticides and veterinary medicines is roughly 60:40.?Year to date timeframe performance for non-technical applications was 92 per cent for veterinary medicines and 60 per cent for pesticides. The timeframe performance for non-technical pesticide applications has increased each quarter period, with a significant increase from 56 per cent to 85 per cent in quarter 4.?

Year to date timeframe performance for major applications was 61 per cent for veterinary medicines and 51 per cent for pesticides. However the biggest drop was in the quarter 3 figures for pesticides at 38 per cent. This reduction was a result of attention placed on reducing the number of overdue applications, which had a negative effect on the timeframe performance for pesticide product applications. The timeframe performance returned to 50 per cent in quarter 4.

Number of applications commencing evaluation by assessment type July 2015 – June 2016

Note: The sum of the four quarters may not equal the total year to date figure, due to small adjustments in data entry for a few applications. The quarter 1, 2 and 3 data above are the same as those published previously, for consistency and because the original figures were correct at the time of publication. The overall differences are immaterial and less than 4 per cent of the totals.?

Number of applications finalised by assessment type July 2015 – June 2016

?

Note: The sum of the four quarters may not equal the total year to date figure, due to small adjustments in data entry for a few applications. The quarter 1, 2 and 3 data above are the same as those published previously, for consistency and because the original figures were correct at the time of publication. The overall differences are immaterial and less than 1 per cent of the totals, except 'veterinary medicines—non-technical', which is 4 per cent difference.

Timeframe performance of applications by assessment type finalised July 2015 – June 2016

Work in progress by assessment type for each quarter in 2015–16

The chart below shows the average duration in months for product applications by assessment type. It is not possible to make some comparisons to previous duration date information. However, a recent study by Oakton provides a comparable data set.

The average duration increased for pesticides over the June quarter—up to 5.1 months for pesticides (from 4.9 months at 31 March 2016) and decreased for veterinary medicines—down to 3.5 months (from 4.5 months at 31 March 2016).

Average duration in months by assessment type July 2015 – June 2016—post 1 July 2014 applications only

Applications by item number

There are 16 different items for product applications grouped into three categories:

1. New products with new actives.
2. New product but an existing active.
3. Variations.

The following table shows the workload and performance varies substantially between item types. The majority of applications are variations but these take the least amount of effort per application. The highest performing applications group is item 9 (timeframe performance of 100 per cent), followed by item 13A applications at 94 per cent.?

Applications processed and performance by item number July 2015 – June 2016

?