OBJECTIVES: To examine the indicators of success in reimbursement application in Australia made by the Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee (PBAC), and describe the rationale behind it.  Of interest is whether or not listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) is recommended based on the clinical evidence, the cost-effectiveness outcomes, political will, and whether there is clarity in the recommendations made for the subsidisation of drugs on the PBS.  This examination is conducted in order to shed light on the basis of decision making and the impact of economic evaluations.  METHODS: The method used in this analysis was to differentiate the medicines into those that have never been subsidised, those that are currently subsidised and those seeking listing of a new indication.  Subsequently the rationales for a positive or negative recommendation for a PBS listing are reviewed and assessed using Public Summary Documents (PSD’s).  A the least squares linear regression analysis was undertaken in order to determine which variable impacted significantly on the PBAC’s recommendation. RESULTS: In 2007, following 1 years worth of PSD’s, the recommendations made by the PBAC were analysed and presented at the European iHEA.  Five years later this paper presents a follow-up to that initial research and explores the recommendations made by the PBAC and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) which have factored into the reimbursement recommendations.  Changes in the thresholds are explored and discussed.   CONCLUSIONS: The PSD documents are now providing researchers with an opportunity to appreciate the decision making process and what influences bare upon a key decision maker, the PBAC.  It sets an example of explicit decision making.  The question that remains, however, is how transparent are the rules and whether the outcomes confirm the perceived league table.