OP03 Trends In The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) Cancer Drugs Fund Reconsiderations
INTRODUCTION:As of July 2016, funding from England's Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) is dispensed based on the results of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidances instead of independent CDF appraisals (1). As part of this transition, NICE is reconsidering...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of technology assessment in health care 2017, Vol.33 (S1), p.2-3 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3 |
---|---|
container_issue | S1 |
container_start_page | 2 |
container_title | International journal of technology assessment in health care |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Liden, Daniel Pontynen, Anson Jaksa, Ashley Rubinstein, Judith |
description | INTRODUCTION:As of July 2016, funding from England's Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) is dispensed based on the results of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidances instead of independent CDF appraisals (1). As part of this transition, NICE is reconsidering drugs previously funded through the CDF (2). This analysis examines CDF reconsiderations conducted between the inception of the new process in July and the end of 2016 to identify any possible trends.METHODS:We collected all NICE final technology appraisal guidances (3) completed before the end of 2016 and noted whether each drug was a CDF reconsideration, what the final decision was, and which factors impacted the decisions.RESULTS:We identified twenty-one NICE oncology reviews competed between July 2016 and the end of 2016. Of these reviews, eight were reconsiderations of drugs previously funded through the old CDF; the rest were new reviews. Only one drug evaluated in the reconsiderations received a negative decision. All the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts and all noted updated clinical data. End of life (EOL) criteria expanded the acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) range for some of the CDF reconsiderations.CONCLUSIONS:All the reconsiderations included updated clinical data and analyses, though it does not appear that updated clinical data were sufficient to bring ICERs to acceptable levels. This is to be expected as the old CDF process served as an alternate funding source for many drugs that did not or were unlikely to fare well under NICE's evaluations. The updated clinical data may have at least increased NICE's confidence in the accuracy of the ICERs. All of the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts to reach acceptable ICER ranges. The results of this first round of reconsiderations suggest that manufacturers prefer offering their drugs at lower prices to potentially losing National Health Service (NHS) reimbursement entirely. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266462317001143 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1986600782</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266462317001143</cupid><sourcerecordid>1986600782</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1142-2a039718ea7fa7fea4c7775b1522f0f50a97f48a8d1c5ac60520648773f158573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UN9LwzAQDqLgnP4BvgV80YfqJWmT9HHMzQ3GJjqfS5Zet46u1aQF_e_N3B4EEQ6Ou-8Hdx8h1wzuGTD18ApcylhywRQAY7E4IT0WKxZJEetT0tvD0R4_JxfebwNHQAo9Ui-eQdClwzr3dFrT5Qbp3LRlU5sqzL4t265FOm4cnaCp2g0d1DkdGod09GmxqrC2SG_n0-HoLqzD4Oij69aejrtAfEHb1L7M0f14-ktyVpjK49Wx98nbeLQcTqLZ4mk6HMwiG27nETcgUsU0GlWEQhNbpVSyYgnnBRQJmFQVsTY6ZzYxVkLCQcZaKVGwRCdK9MnNwffdNR8d-jbbNp0LP_mMpVpKAKV5YLEDy7rGe4dF9u7KnXFfGYNsH2v2J9agEUeN2a1cma_xl_W_qm8OmnZc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1986600782</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>OP03 Trends In The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) Cancer Drugs Fund Reconsiderations</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Liden, Daniel ; Pontynen, Anson ; Jaksa, Ashley ; Rubinstein, Judith</creator><creatorcontrib>Liden, Daniel ; Pontynen, Anson ; Jaksa, Ashley ; Rubinstein, Judith</creatorcontrib><description>INTRODUCTION:As of July 2016, funding from England's Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) is dispensed based on the results of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidances instead of independent CDF appraisals (1). As part of this transition, NICE is reconsidering drugs previously funded through the CDF (2). This analysis examines CDF reconsiderations conducted between the inception of the new process in July and the end of 2016 to identify any possible trends.METHODS:We collected all NICE final technology appraisal guidances (3) completed before the end of 2016 and noted whether each drug was a CDF reconsideration, what the final decision was, and which factors impacted the decisions.RESULTS:We identified twenty-one NICE oncology reviews competed between July 2016 and the end of 2016. Of these reviews, eight were reconsiderations of drugs previously funded through the old CDF; the rest were new reviews. Only one drug evaluated in the reconsiderations received a negative decision. All the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts and all noted updated clinical data. End of life (EOL) criteria expanded the acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) range for some of the CDF reconsiderations.CONCLUSIONS:All the reconsiderations included updated clinical data and analyses, though it does not appear that updated clinical data were sufficient to bring ICERs to acceptable levels. This is to be expected as the old CDF process served as an alternate funding source for many drugs that did not or were unlikely to fare well under NICE's evaluations. The updated clinical data may have at least increased NICE's confidence in the accuracy of the ICERs. All of the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts to reach acceptable ICER ranges. The results of this first round of reconsiderations suggest that manufacturers prefer offering their drugs at lower prices to potentially losing National Health Service (NHS) reimbursement entirely.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317001143</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Data processing ; Discounts ; Drugs ; End of life ; Funding ; Health ; Identification methods ; Oral Presentations ; Reviews ; Technology ; Trends</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2017, Vol.33 (S1), p.2-3</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462317001143/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liden, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pontynen, Anson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaksa, Ashley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubinstein, Judith</creatorcontrib><title>OP03 Trends In The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) Cancer Drugs Fund Reconsiderations</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><description>INTRODUCTION:As of July 2016, funding from England's Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) is dispensed based on the results of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidances instead of independent CDF appraisals (1). As part of this transition, NICE is reconsidering drugs previously funded through the CDF (2). This analysis examines CDF reconsiderations conducted between the inception of the new process in July and the end of 2016 to identify any possible trends.METHODS:We collected all NICE final technology appraisal guidances (3) completed before the end of 2016 and noted whether each drug was a CDF reconsideration, what the final decision was, and which factors impacted the decisions.RESULTS:We identified twenty-one NICE oncology reviews competed between July 2016 and the end of 2016. Of these reviews, eight were reconsiderations of drugs previously funded through the old CDF; the rest were new reviews. Only one drug evaluated in the reconsiderations received a negative decision. All the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts and all noted updated clinical data. End of life (EOL) criteria expanded the acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) range for some of the CDF reconsiderations.CONCLUSIONS:All the reconsiderations included updated clinical data and analyses, though it does not appear that updated clinical data were sufficient to bring ICERs to acceptable levels. This is to be expected as the old CDF process served as an alternate funding source for many drugs that did not or were unlikely to fare well under NICE's evaluations. The updated clinical data may have at least increased NICE's confidence in the accuracy of the ICERs. All of the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts to reach acceptable ICER ranges. The results of this first round of reconsiderations suggest that manufacturers prefer offering their drugs at lower prices to potentially losing National Health Service (NHS) reimbursement entirely.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Discounts</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>End of life</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Identification methods</subject><subject>Oral Presentations</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Trends</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UN9LwzAQDqLgnP4BvgV80YfqJWmT9HHMzQ3GJjqfS5Zet46u1aQF_e_N3B4EEQ6Ou-8Hdx8h1wzuGTD18ApcylhywRQAY7E4IT0WKxZJEetT0tvD0R4_JxfebwNHQAo9Ui-eQdClwzr3dFrT5Qbp3LRlU5sqzL4t265FOm4cnaCp2g0d1DkdGod09GmxqrC2SG_n0-HoLqzD4Oij69aejrtAfEHb1L7M0f14-ktyVpjK49Wx98nbeLQcTqLZ4mk6HMwiG27nETcgUsU0GlWEQhNbpVSyYgnnBRQJmFQVsTY6ZzYxVkLCQcZaKVGwRCdK9MnNwffdNR8d-jbbNp0LP_mMpVpKAKV5YLEDy7rGe4dF9u7KnXFfGYNsH2v2J9agEUeN2a1cma_xl_W_qm8OmnZc</recordid><startdate>2017</startdate><enddate>2017</enddate><creator>Liden, Daniel</creator><creator>Pontynen, Anson</creator><creator>Jaksa, Ashley</creator><creator>Rubinstein, Judith</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2017</creationdate><title>OP03 Trends In The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) Cancer Drugs Fund Reconsiderations</title><author>Liden, Daniel ; Pontynen, Anson ; Jaksa, Ashley ; Rubinstein, Judith</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1142-2a039718ea7fa7fea4c7775b1522f0f50a97f48a8d1c5ac60520648773f158573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Discounts</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>End of life</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Identification methods</topic><topic>Oral Presentations</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Trends</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liden, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pontynen, Anson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaksa, Ashley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubinstein, Judith</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liden, Daniel</au><au>Pontynen, Anson</au><au>Jaksa, Ashley</au><au>Rubinstein, Judith</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>OP03 Trends In The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) Cancer Drugs Fund Reconsiderations</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><date>2017</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>2</spage><epage>3</epage><pages>2-3</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>INTRODUCTION:As of July 2016, funding from England's Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) is dispensed based on the results of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidances instead of independent CDF appraisals (1). As part of this transition, NICE is reconsidering drugs previously funded through the CDF (2). This analysis examines CDF reconsiderations conducted between the inception of the new process in July and the end of 2016 to identify any possible trends.METHODS:We collected all NICE final technology appraisal guidances (3) completed before the end of 2016 and noted whether each drug was a CDF reconsideration, what the final decision was, and which factors impacted the decisions.RESULTS:We identified twenty-one NICE oncology reviews competed between July 2016 and the end of 2016. Of these reviews, eight were reconsiderations of drugs previously funded through the old CDF; the rest were new reviews. Only one drug evaluated in the reconsiderations received a negative decision. All the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts and all noted updated clinical data. End of life (EOL) criteria expanded the acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) range for some of the CDF reconsiderations.CONCLUSIONS:All the reconsiderations included updated clinical data and analyses, though it does not appear that updated clinical data were sufficient to bring ICERs to acceptable levels. This is to be expected as the old CDF process served as an alternate funding source for many drugs that did not or were unlikely to fare well under NICE's evaluations. The updated clinical data may have at least increased NICE's confidence in the accuracy of the ICERs. All of the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts to reach acceptable ICER ranges. The results of this first round of reconsiderations suggest that manufacturers prefer offering their drugs at lower prices to potentially losing National Health Service (NHS) reimbursement entirely.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266462317001143</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4623 |
ispartof | International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2017, Vol.33 (S1), p.2-3 |
issn | 0266-4623 1471-6348 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1986600782 |
source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Cancer Data processing Discounts Drugs End of life Funding Health Identification methods Oral Presentations Reviews Technology Trends |
title | OP03 Trends In The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) Cancer Drugs Fund Reconsiderations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T21%3A32%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=OP03%20Trends%20In%20The%20National%20Institute%20For%20Health%20And%20Care%20Excellence%20(NICE)%20Cancer%20Drugs%20Fund%20Reconsiderations&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Liden,%20Daniel&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=2&rft.epage=3&rft.pages=2-3&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462317001143&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1986600782%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1986600782&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266462317001143&rfr_iscdi=true |