» Articles » PMID: 22961976

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

Overview
Journal Health Econ
Publisher Wiley
Date 2012 Sep 11
PMID 22961976
Citations 64
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Systematic Literature Review of Access Pathways to Drugs for Patients with Rare Diseases.

Vargas C, De Abreu Lourenco R, Espinoza M, Goodall S Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024; 23(2):209-229.

PMID: 39731657 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00939-4.


Rationale, conceptual issues, and resultant protocol for a mixed methods Person Trade Off (PTO) and qualitative study to estimate and understand the relative value of gains in health for children and young people compared to adults.

Peasgood T, Bailey C, Chen G, De Silva A, De Silva Perera U, Norman R PLoS One. 2024; 19(6):e0302886.

PMID: 38829857 PMC: 11146702. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302886.


Defining 'therapeutic value' of medicines: a scoping review.

Glaus C, Kloeti A, Vokinger K BMJ Open. 2023; 13(12):e078134.

PMID: 38110384 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078134.


Rule of Prevention: a potential framework to evaluate preventive interventions for rare diseases.

Gibson E, Ollendorf D, Simoens S, Bloom D, Martinon-Torres F, Salisbury D J Mark Access Health Policy. 2023; 11(1):2239557.

PMID: 37583879 PMC: 10424616. DOI: 10.1080/20016689.2023.2239557.


Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review.

Gu Y, Wang A, Tang H, Wang H, Jiang Y, Jin C Patient Prefer Adherence. 2023; 17:1783-1797.

PMID: 37520063 PMC: 10378464. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S416226.