Literature DB >> 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.

Warren G Linley1, Dyfrig A Hughes.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NICE; cancer drugs fund; equity; health care rationing; orphan drugs; public preferences; value-based pricing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22961976     DOI: 10.1002/hec.2872

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  52 in total

1.  Health technology assessment with risk aversion in health.

Authors:  Darius N Lakdawalla; Charles E Phelps
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2020-06-06       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  The Irish Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: Does it Support Rational Rationing or Might it Lead to Unintended Harm to Ireland's Health System?

Authors:  James F O'Mahony; Diarmuid Coughlan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences.

Authors:  Chris D Skedgel; Allan J Wailoo; Ron L Akehurst
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 4.  Market access of cancer drugs in European countries: improving resource allocation.

Authors:  Kim Pauwels; Isabelle Huys; Minne Casteels; Katelijne De Nys; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 4.493

5.  Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences.

Authors:  Koonal K Shah; Aki Tsuchiya; Allan J Wailoo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-05-09

6.  Challenges in measuring the societal value of orphan drugs: insights from a canadian stated preference survey.

Authors:  Nick Dragojlovic; Shirin Rizzardo; Nick Bansback; Craig Mitton; Carlo A Marra; Larry D Lynd
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay.

Authors:  S Olofsson; U-G Gerdtham; L Hultkrantz; U Persson
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-08-12

8.  Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 9.  Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment.

Authors:  Michael Drummond; Adrian Towse
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-05

Review 10.  The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept.

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; Robert Terkola; Maarten Postma
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.