SOCIETAL VIEWS ON NICE, CANCER DRUGS FUND AND VALUE‐BASED PRICING CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISING MEDICINES: A CROSS‐SECTIONAL SURVEY OF 4118 ADULTS IN GREAT BRITAIN

Health Economics (United Kingdom) - Tập 22 Số 8 - Trang 948-964 - 2013
Warren G. Linley1, Dyfrig Hughes1
1Centre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation, Institute of Medical and Social Care Research, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Tóm tắt

ABSTRACTThe criteria used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for accepting higher incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios for some medicines over others, and the recent introduction of the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) in England, are assumed to reflect societal preferences for National Health Service resource allocation. Robust empirical evidence to this effect is lacking. To explore societal preferences for these and other criteria, including those proposed for rewarding new medicines under the future value‐based pricing (VBP) system, we conducted a choice‐based experiment in 4118 UK adults via web‐based surveys. Preferences were determined by asking respondents to allocate fixed funds between different patient and disease types reflecting nine specific prioritisation criteria. Respondents supported the criteria proposed under the VBP system (for severe diseases, address unmet needs, are innovative—provided they offered substantial health benefits, and have wider societal benefits) but did not support the end‐of‐life premium or the prioritisation of children or disadvantaged populations as specified by NICE, nor the special funding status for treatments of rare diseases, nor the CDF. Policies introduced on the basis of perceived—and not actual—societal values may lead to inappropriate resource allocation decisions with the potential for significant population health and economic consequences. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

All Wales Medicines Strategy Group.2011.AWMSG policy relating to ultra‐orphan medicines. Available:http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/371/AWMSG%20policy%20relating%20to%20Ultra‐orphan%20Medicines%20Sep%2011.pdf[09 May 2012].

10.1007/s10198-011-0320-4

10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62231-3

Department of Health.2009.NHS Chief Executive's Annual Report for 2008–09 May 2009. Available at:http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_099700.pdf[15 July 2012].

Department of Health.2010a.The NHS Constitution for England. Available:http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_113613[09 May 2012].

Department of Health.2010b.Impact assessment of a proposal for a Cancer Drugs Fund. Available:http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_120930.pdf[09 May 2012].

Department of Health.2010c.Value‐based pricing impact assessment. Available:http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_122823.pdf[09 May 2012].

Department of Health.2010d.A new value‐based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. Available:http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Closedconsultations/DH_122760[09 May 2012].

Department of Health.2010e.The Cancer Drugs Fund: a consultation. Available:http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_120931.pdf[09 May 2012].

Department of Health.2011.A new value‐based approach to the pricing of branded medicines – Government response to consultation. Available:http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_128404.pdf[09 May 2012].

10.1136/bmj.c4715

Dolan P, 2007, The Elgar companion to Health Economics, 382

10.1002/hec.924

FontainN HemilaK.2000.Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on Orphan Medicinal Products. Official Journal of the European Communities. Available:http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol‐1/reg_2000_141/reg_2000_141_en.pdf[09 May 2012].

FootC HarrisonT.2011.How to improve cancer survival: explaining England's relatively poor rates. The King's Fund. Available:http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/cancer_survival.html[09 May 2012].

GreenbergD CohenJT NeumannPJ.2010.Are incremental benefits from new technology decreasing? An analysis of QALY gains over time. Proceedings of the 13thBiennial Society for Medical Decision Making European Meeting; Austria [abstract No.1].

10.2165/11592570-000000000-00000

Hughes D, 2011, Ring‐fencing a budget for cancer drugs: is it fair? Against, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 41, 226

Institute for Fiscal Studies/Nuffield Trust.2012.NHS and social care funding: the outlook to 2021/22. Available:http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/120704_nhs‐social‐care‐funding‐outlook‐2021‐22_0.pdf[15 July 2012].

10.1001/jama.2012.3532

KindP HardmanG MacranS.1999.UK population norms for EQ‐5D. Discussion Paper 172 University of York Centre for Health Economics. Available:http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%20172.pdf[09 May 2012].

LinleyWG HughesDA.2012.Reimbursement decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: influence of policy and clinical and economic factors. Pharmacoeconomics 2012 Jun 7. doi: 10.2165/11591530‐000000000‐00000. [Epub ahead of print] .

10.1200/JCO.2009.26.2758

10.1136/bmj.331.7523.1016

10.3310/hta5310

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.2008a.Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available:http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf[09 May 2012].

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.2008b.Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance 2ndEd. Available:http://www.nice.org.uk/media/C18/30/SVJ2PUBLICATION2008.pdf[09 May 2012].

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.2008c.Report on NICE Citizens Council meeting: departing from the threshold. Available:http://www.nice.org.uk/media/231/CB/NICECitizensCouncilDepartingThresholdFinal.pdf[09 May 2012].

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.2009.Supplementary advice to the appraisal committees: appraising life‐extending end of life medicines. Available:http://www.nice.org.uk/media/E4A/79/SupplementaryAdviceTACEoL.pdf[09 May 2012].

National Readership Survey.2010.NRS 2010 lifestyle data. Available:http://www.nrs.co.uk/lifestyle.html[09 May 2012].

NHS Specialised Services.2011.National specialised commissioning priorities 2011/12. Available:http://www.specialisedservices.nhs.uk/library/21/National_Specialised_Commissioning_Priorities_201112.pdf[09 May 2012].

Office for National Statistics.2009.General lifestyle survey 2009. Available:http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ghs/general‐lifestyle‐survey/2009‐report/index.html[09 May 2012].

Office for National Statistics.2010.Nomis official labour force statistics: headline indicators 2011/12. Available:http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/tml/templates/data/LFS%20headline%20indicators.xls[09 May 2012]

Office for National Statistics.2011.Mid‐2010 population estimates for adults aged 16 years and over. Available:http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop‐estimate/population‐estimates‐for‐uk‐‐england‐and‐wales‐‐scotland‐and‐northern‐ireland/mid‐2010‐population‐estimates/rft‐‐‐mid‐2010‐population‐estimates.zip[09 May 2012].

10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03589.x

RichardsM.2008.Improving access to medicines for NHS patients: a report for the Secretary of State for Health by Professor Mike Richards CBE. Available:http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_089952.pdf[09 May 2012].

Scottish Medicines Consortium.2010.SMC modifiers used in appraising new medicines. Available:http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/About_SMC/Policy_Statements/SMC_Modifiers_used_in_Appraising_New_Medicines[09 May 2012].

10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.08.005

10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00216.x

Walker A, 2009, How much good do new medicines do?, Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 105, O29

10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62137-X