Value and cancer medicines —A personal view

Publication date: Available online 5 November 2016 Source:Journal of Cancer Policy Author(s): Kenneth R Paterson This paper outline the attributes of new medicines that are perceived to offer added clinical value by those making decisions about pricing and reimbursement, often called ‘payers’. It also describes other attributes that, although they may represent some progress in cancer care, may not represent added value for which a payer would wish to pay, and some more controversial areas where there is some debate and difference of view on whether added value exists. A review of data from the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) shows that median lifetime QALY gain for all new medicines assessed was 0.14 QALYs (mean 0.59 QALYs). Oncology medicines showed slightly greater median QALY gains, with 0.37 QALYs for medicines for early or adjuvant therapy (n=49) and 0.26 QALYs for medicines for advanced cancer (n=38); mean health gain was 0.51 QALYs for both groups. The discussion of value assessment is structured in three parts; accepted elements of clinical value, questionable clinical value and doubtful clinical value. A review of non-acceptance decisions reveal that cost-effectiveness considerations sometimes played a role for the decision, but it is clear that other factors, such as limited information on clinical benefit, concerns about extrapolation from trial data and failure to take account of prevailing clinical practice, were part of the failure to demonstrate the...
Source: Journal of Cancer Policy - Category: Cancer & Oncology Source Type: research