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
ABSTRACT The 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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Health economics 2013-08, Vol.22 (8), p.948-964 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 964 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 948 |
| container_title | Health economics |
| container_volume | 22 |
| creator | Linley, Warren G. Hughes, Dyfrig A. |
| description | ABSTRACT
The 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/hec.2872 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1438669578</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1438669578</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4842-99fab89f3e0c830b99aebdd3fb5362b4fc398b95871d7c053b698c2ebfbe3cf63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkd9u0zAUhyMEYmMg8QTIEjdckOHY-WNz5zpOZ5EmU5x04sqKU0d0a9eRrNr2NLwqDitDQkJcWMc-59N3ZP08720ATwMI0advtjtFJEHPvOMAUuoHMILPp3uU-BRheOS9GsdLCN0Mxi-9I4RoHNAkPvZ-qJJLUbMcLKW4UKAsQCG5-Ag4K7ioQFo1cwWypkgBc2fJ8kb4M6ZECs4ryWUxB7yStagkA1lZTc3SvaWaJguRTohQnwFzWKmUrwSvZVm4faqpluIrKDMQBgEBLG3yWgFZgHklWA1mzsJk8dp70beb0b451BOvyUTNz_y8nEvOcr8LSYh8SvvWENpjCzuCoaG0tWa1wr2JcIxM2HeYEkMjkgSrpIMRNjElHbKmNxZ3fYxPvA-P3pth931vx1u9XY-d3Wzaa7vbjzoIMYljGiXk_yimFMUh_YW-_wu93O2Ha_cRJ3TBJdAp_wi7YTeOg-31zbDetsODDqCe8tUuXz3l69B3B-HebO3qCfwdqAP8R-BuvbEP_xTpM8EPwgO_Hm_t_RPfDlc6TnAS6YtirlO6mC3O60x_wT8B4sSvQw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1400270695</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>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</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Linley, Warren G. ; Hughes, Dyfrig A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Linley, Warren G. ; Hughes, Dyfrig A.</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
The 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1057-9230</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/hec.2872</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22961976</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HEECEZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Antineoplastic Agents - economics ; Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use ; Attitude to Health ; Cancer ; cancer drugs fund ; Cost-Benefit Analysis - economics ; Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Data Collection ; Decision analysis ; Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data ; Drugs ; equity ; Federal funding ; Female ; Funds ; Health ; Health care policy ; health care rationing ; Health economics ; Health Priorities - economics ; Health Priorities - statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; NICE ; orphan drugs ; Preferences ; Prescription drugs ; Pricing ; public preferences ; Resource allocation ; Resource Allocation - economics ; Resource Allocation - methods ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United Kingdom - epidemiology ; value-based pricing ; Value-Based Purchasing - statistics & numerical data ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Health economics, 2013-08, Vol.22 (8), p.948-964</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Wiley Periodicals Inc. Aug 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4842-99fab89f3e0c830b99aebdd3fb5362b4fc398b95871d7c053b698c2ebfbe3cf63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4842-99fab89f3e0c830b99aebdd3fb5362b4fc398b95871d7c053b698c2ebfbe3cf63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fhec.2872$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fhec.2872$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,30976,30977,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22961976$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Linley, Warren G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Dyfrig A.</creatorcontrib><title>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</title><title>Health economics</title><addtitle>Health Econ</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT
The 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.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - economics</subject><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Attitude to Health</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>cancer drugs fund</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis - economics</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>equity</subject><subject>Federal funding</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Funds</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>health care rationing</subject><subject>Health economics</subject><subject>Health Priorities - economics</subject><subject>Health Priorities - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>NICE</subject><subject>orphan drugs</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Prescription drugs</subject><subject>Pricing</subject><subject>public preferences</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><subject>Resource Allocation - economics</subject><subject>Resource Allocation - methods</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United Kingdom - epidemiology</subject><subject>value-based pricing</subject><subject>Value-Based Purchasing - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1057-9230</issn><issn>1099-1050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkd9u0zAUhyMEYmMg8QTIEjdckOHY-WNz5zpOZ5EmU5x04sqKU0d0a9eRrNr2NLwqDitDQkJcWMc-59N3ZP08720ATwMI0advtjtFJEHPvOMAUuoHMILPp3uU-BRheOS9GsdLCN0Mxi-9I4RoHNAkPvZ-qJJLUbMcLKW4UKAsQCG5-Ag4K7ioQFo1cwWypkgBc2fJ8kb4M6ZECs4ryWUxB7yStagkA1lZTc3SvaWaJguRTohQnwFzWKmUrwSvZVm4faqpluIrKDMQBgEBLG3yWgFZgHklWA1mzsJk8dp70beb0b451BOvyUTNz_y8nEvOcr8LSYh8SvvWENpjCzuCoaG0tWa1wr2JcIxM2HeYEkMjkgSrpIMRNjElHbKmNxZ3fYxPvA-P3pth931vx1u9XY-d3Wzaa7vbjzoIMYljGiXk_yimFMUh_YW-_wu93O2Ha_cRJ3TBJdAp_wi7YTeOg-31zbDetsODDqCe8tUuXz3l69B3B-HebO3qCfwdqAP8R-BuvbEP_xTpM8EPwgO_Hm_t_RPfDlc6TnAS6YtirlO6mC3O60x_wT8B4sSvQw</recordid><startdate>201308</startdate><enddate>201308</enddate><creator>Linley, Warren G.</creator><creator>Hughes, Dyfrig A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Periodicals Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201308</creationdate><title>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</title><author>Linley, Warren G. ; Hughes, Dyfrig A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4842-99fab89f3e0c830b99aebdd3fb5362b4fc398b95871d7c053b698c2ebfbe3cf63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - economics</topic><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Attitude to Health</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>cancer drugs fund</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis - economics</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>equity</topic><topic>Federal funding</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Funds</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>health care rationing</topic><topic>Health economics</topic><topic>Health Priorities - economics</topic><topic>Health Priorities - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>NICE</topic><topic>orphan drugs</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Prescription drugs</topic><topic>Pricing</topic><topic>public preferences</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><topic>Resource Allocation - economics</topic><topic>Resource Allocation - methods</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United Kingdom - epidemiology</topic><topic>value-based pricing</topic><topic>Value-Based Purchasing - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Linley, Warren G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Dyfrig A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Linley, Warren G.</au><au>Hughes, Dyfrig A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>Health economics</jtitle><addtitle>Health Econ</addtitle><date>2013-08</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>948</spage><epage>964</epage><pages>948-964</pages><issn>1057-9230</issn><eissn>1099-1050</eissn><coden>HEECEZ</coden><abstract>ABSTRACT
The 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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>22961976</pmid><doi>10.1002/hec.2872</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1057-9230 |
| ispartof | Health economics, 2013-08, Vol.22 (8), p.948-964 |
| issn | 1057-9230 1099-1050 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1438669578 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Antineoplastic Agents - economics Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use Attitude to Health Cancer cancer drugs fund Cost-Benefit Analysis - economics Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data Cross-Sectional Studies Data Collection Decision analysis Drug Costs - statistics & numerical data Drugs equity Federal funding Female Funds Health Health care policy health care rationing Health economics Health Priorities - economics Health Priorities - statistics & numerical data Humans Male Middle Aged NICE orphan drugs Preferences Prescription drugs Pricing public preferences Resource allocation Resource Allocation - economics Resource Allocation - methods Studies Surveys and Questionnaires United Kingdom - epidemiology value-based pricing Value-Based Purchasing - statistics & numerical data Young Adult |
| title | 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 |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T02%3A56%3A17IST&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=SOCIETAL%20VIEWS%20ON%20NICE,%20CANCER%20DRUGS%20FUND%20AND%20VALUE-BASED%20PRICING%20CRITERIA%20FOR%20PRIORITISING%20MEDICINES:%20A%20CROSS-SECTIONAL%20SURVEY%20OF%204118%20ADULTS%20IN%20GREAT%20BRITAIN&rft.jtitle=Health%20economics&rft.au=Linley,%20Warren%20G.&rft.date=2013-08&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=948&rft.epage=964&rft.pages=948-964&rft.issn=1057-9230&rft.eissn=1099-1050&rft.coden=HEECEZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/hec.2872&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1438669578%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=1400270695&rft_id=info:pmid/22961976&rfr_iscdi=true |