Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:06:46.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why licensing authorities need to consider the net value of new drugs in assigning review priorities: Addressing the tension between licensing and reimbursement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2008

Christopher McCabe ,
Karl Claxton  and
Anthony O'Hagan
Christopher McCabe
Affiliation:
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences
Karl Claxton
Affiliation:
University of York
Anthony O'Hagan
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pharmaceutical regulators and healthcare reimbursement authorities operate in different intellectual paradigms and adopt very different decision rules. As a result, drugs that have been licensed are often not available to all patients who could benefit because reimbursement authorities judge that the cost of therapies is greater than the health produced. This finding creates uncertainty for pharmaceutical companies planning their research and development investment, as licensing is no longer a guarantee of market access. In this study, we propose that it would be consistent with the objectives of pharmaceutical regulators to use the Net Benefit Framework of reimbursement authorities to identify those therapies that should be subject to priority review, that it is feasible to do so and that this would have several positive effects for patients, industry, and healthcare systems.

Keywords

Public healthLicensingCost effectiveness analysisReimbursement
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 140 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. ABPI House of Commons Health Select Committee. Inquiry in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Submission from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry 10 January 2002. Available at: http://www.abpi.org.uk/information/industry_positions/NICE%20-%20select%20committee%20submission%20ABPI%20final.doc. Accessed 18 November 2005.Google Scholar
2. Angell, M. Excess in the pharmaceutical industry. CMAJ. 2004;171:12.Google Scholar
3. Brazier, JE, Deverill, M, Green, C, Harper, R, Booth, A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999; 3.Google Scholar
4. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guideline for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. 2006. Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2006.Google Scholar
5. Claxton, K, Neuman, PJ, Araki, SS, Weinstein, MC. The value of information: An application to a policy model of Alzheimer's disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001; 17:38–55.Google Scholar
6. Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Drummond, M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 2002;360:711–715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Culyer, AJ, McCabe, C, Briggs, AH et al. , Searching for a threshold, not setting one: The role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007; 1:56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Detels, R, McEwen, J, Beaglehole, R, Tanaka, H, eds. Oxford textbook of public health. Oxford: OUP; 2002.Google Scholar
9. DiMasi, JA, Hansen, RW, Grabowski, HG. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003; 22:151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the Economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: OUP; 2005.Google Scholar
11. European Medicines Evaluation Agency. Available at: http://www.emea.eu.int/mission.htm. Accessed 1 September 2005.Google Scholar
12. Food and Drug Administration. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html. Accessed 1 September 2005.Google Scholar
13. CMS. CMS Legislative Summary April 2004: Summary of HR1: Medicare prescription drug improvement and modernization act of 2003. Public Law 10–173. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MMAUpdate/downloads/PL108-173summary.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2007.Google Scholar
14. International Society for PharmacoEconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Available at: http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp. Accessed 24 November 2005.Google Scholar
15. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of health technology appraisal. London: NICE; April 2004.Google Scholar
16. Palmer, S, Smith, PC. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 2000; 19:755–766.Google Scholar
17. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC): Including major submissions involving economic evaluations. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/pub-lishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pubs-guidelines-index.htm. Accessed 12 April 2006.Google Scholar
18. Rawlins, M. Cutting the cost of drug development? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:360–362.Google Scholar