Literature DB >> 20498408

Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric?

Anne Mason1, Michael Drummond, Scott Ramsey, Jonathan Campbell, Dennis Raisch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In contrast to the United States, several European countries have health technology assessment programs for drugs, many of which assess cost effectiveness. Coverage decisions that consider cost effectiveness may lead to restrictions in access.
METHODS: For a purposive sample of five decision-making bodies, we analyzed US and United Kingdom coverage decisions on all anticancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2004 to 2008. Data sources for the timing and outcome of licensing and coverage decisions included published and unpublished documentation, Web sites, and personal communication.
RESULTS: The FDA approved 59 anticancer drugs over the study period, of which 46 were also approved by the European Medicines Agency. In the United States, 100% of drugs were covered, mostly without restriction. However, the United Kingdom bodies made positive coverage decisions for less than half of licensed drugs (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE]: 39%; Scottish Medicines Consortium [SMC]: 43%). Whereas the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) covered all 59 drugs from the FDA license date, delays were evident for some Regence Group decisions that were informed by cost effectiveness (median, 0 days; semi-interquartile range [SIQR], 122 days; n = 22). Relative to the European Medicines Agency license date, median time to coverage was 783 days (SIQR, 170 days) for NICE and 231 days (SIQR, 129 days) for the SMC.
CONCLUSION: Anticancer drug coverage decisions that consider cost effectiveness are associated with greater restrictions and slower time to coverage. However, this approach may represent an explicit alternative to rationing achieved through the use of patient copayments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20498408     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.2758

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  24 in total

Review 1.  Off-label use of anti-cancer drugs between clinical practice and research: the Italian experience.

Authors:  Rosa Lerose; Pellegrino Musto; Michele Aieta; Carla Papa; Alfredo Tartarone
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  When to wait for more evidence? Real options analysis in proton therapy.

Authors:  Janneke P C Grutters; Keith R Abrams; Dirk de Ruysscher; Madelon Pijls-Johannesma; Hans J M Peters; Eric Beutner; Philippe Lambin; Manuela A Joore
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2011-12-06

3.  Reimbursement decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: influence of policy and clinical and economic factors.

Authors:  Warren G Linley; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making.

Authors:  Margreet Franken; Fredrik Nilsson; Frank Sandmann; Anthonius de Boer; Marc Koopmanschap
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Comparing subsidized access to medicines across payer systems.

Authors:  Michael Wonder; Richard Milne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  A fresh perspective on comparing the FDA and the CHMP/EMA: approval of antineoplastic tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Authors:  Rashmi R Shah; Samantha A Roberts; Devron R Shah
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Alignment of practice guidelines with targeted-therapy drug funding policies in Ontario.

Authors:  R Ramjeesingh; R M Meyer; M Brouwers; B E Chen; C M Booth
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  A comparative analysis of two contrasting European approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France.

Authors:  Michael Drummond; Gerard de Pouvourville; Elizabeth Jones; Jennifer Haig; Grece Saba; Hélène Cawston
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cost-utility analysis of chemotherapy regimens in elderly patients with stage III colon cancer.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Rohan C Parikh; Janice N Cormier; Wenyaw Chan; Xianglin L Du
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers.

Authors:  Tatjana E MacLeod; Anthony H Harris; Ajay Mahal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.