OBJECTIVES: Generic entry of pharmaceuticals in Australia triggers a price reduction of 16%, followed by further reductions via a process called ‘Price Disclosure’ (PD).  Significant price reductions for standard of care (SOC) derived through PD may increase the difficulty of demonstrating cost-effectiveness of a new treatment (NEW).  Conversely, anticipating generic entry for NEW may improve cost-effectiveness, particularly if initially of high-cost.  The objective of this study was to quantify the impact of anticipated PD on reimbursement decision making in the Australian context via multi-cohort cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A two state oncology model was constructed comparing NEW to SOC over 30-years. Probability of survival was assumed to be 3-times higher for NEW at 150-times the price of SOC. A price function, based on Australian PD statistics, was applied to the price of NEW from year 10 to emulate generic entry.  30 cohorts were run through the model, each commencing in subsequent years.  ICERs for each cohort and an aggregate ICER across all cohorts were calculated.  Whilst no ICER threshold is applied in Australia, $50k/LY was assumed for analysis purposes. RESULTS: For individual cohorts, the cost-effectiveness of NEW improved over time.  ICERs ranged from $71K/LY for Cohort 1 to $100/LY for Cohort 22 onwards.  The threshold was crossed between Cohort 10 and 11.  For all cohorts over 30 years the aggregate ICER was $39K/LY, however only 19 cohorts were required over as many years to cross the threshold at an ICER of $49K/LY. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional CEA only supports funding of NEW from Cohort 11 onward, suggesting a potential 10 year delay to access.  Aggregate CEA however supports funding of NEW immediately over a time-horizon of 19 or more years.  Clearly future price changes affect CEA of new treatments; failure to appropriately account for them may result in delayed access to new medications.