Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:10:51.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

OP03 Trends In The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) Cancer Drugs Fund Reconsiderations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
INTRODUCTION:

As of July 2016, funding from England's Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) is dispensed based on the results of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidances instead of independent CDF appraisals (1). As part of this transition, NICE is reconsidering drugs previously funded through the CDF (2). This analysis examines CDF reconsiderations conducted between the inception of the new process in July and the end of 2016 to identify any possible trends.

METHODS:

We collected all NICE final technology appraisal guidances (3) completed before the end of 2016 and noted whether each drug was a CDF reconsideration, what the final decision was, and which factors impacted the decisions.

RESULTS:

We identified twenty-one NICE oncology reviews competed between July 2016 and the end of 2016. Of these reviews, eight were reconsiderations of drugs previously funded through the old CDF; the rest were new reviews. Only one drug evaluated in the reconsiderations received a negative decision. All the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts and all noted updated clinical data. End of life (EOL) criteria expanded the acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) range for some of the CDF reconsiderations.

CONCLUSIONS:

All the reconsiderations included updated clinical data and analyses, though it does not appear that updated clinical data were sufficient to bring ICERs to acceptable levels. This is to be expected as the old CDF process served as an alternate funding source for many drugs that did not or were unlikely to fare well under NICE's evaluations. The updated clinical data may have at least increased NICE's confidence in the accuracy of the ICERs. All of the reconsiderations included confidential manufacturer discounts to reach acceptable ICER ranges. The results of this first round of reconsiderations suggest that manufacturers prefer offering their drugs at lower prices to potentially losing National Health Service (NHS) reimbursement entirely.

Type
Oral Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

References

REFERENCES:

1. “Cancer? Cancer Drugs Fund.” Accessed January 11, 2017. https://www.england.nhs.uk/cancer/cdf/.Google Scholar
2. “Cancer Drugs Fund | NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance | NICE Guidance | Our Programmes | What We Do | About | NICE.” CorporatePage. Accessed January 11, 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-technology-appraisal-guidance/cancer-drugs-fund.Google Scholar
3. “Published | Guidance | NICE.” Accessed January 11, 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?type=ta.Google Scholar