Cargando…

Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes

BACKGROUND: The Scottish Medicines Consortium evaluates new drugs for use in the National Health Service in Scotland. Reforms in 2014 to their evaluation process aimed to increase patient access to new drugs for end-of-life or rare conditions; the changes include additional steps in the process to g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morrell, Liz, Wordsworth, Sarah, Fu, Howell, Rees, Sian, Barker, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28854927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2561-0
_version_ 1783260410650034176
author Morrell, Liz
Wordsworth, Sarah
Fu, Howell
Rees, Sian
Barker, Richard
author_facet Morrell, Liz
Wordsworth, Sarah
Fu, Howell
Rees, Sian
Barker, Richard
author_sort Morrell, Liz
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Scottish Medicines Consortium evaluates new drugs for use in the National Health Service in Scotland. Reforms in 2014 to their evaluation process aimed to increase patient access to new drugs for end-of-life or rare conditions; the changes include additional steps in the process to gain further information from patients and clinicians, and for revised commercial agreements. This study examines the extent of any impact of the reforms on funding decisions. METHOD: Data on the Scottish Medicines Consortium’s funding decisions during 24 months post-reform were extracted from published Advice, for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Comparison data were extracted for the 24 months pre-reform. Data on decisions for England by the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence for the same drugs were extracted from published Technology Appraisals. RESULTS: The new process was used by 90% (53/59) of cancer submissions. It is triggered if the initial advice is not to recommend, and this risk-of-rejection level is higher than in the pre-period. Thirty-eight cancer drugs obtained some level of funding through the new process, but there was no significant difference in the distribution of decision types compared to the pre-reform period. Thematic analysis of patient and clinician input showed no clear relationship between issues raised and funding decision. Differences between SMC’s and NICE’s definitions of End-of-Life did not fully explain differences in funding decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium’s reforms have allowed funding of up to 38 cancer drugs that might previously have been rejected. However, the contribution of specific elements of the reforms to the final decision is unclear. The process could be improved by increased transparency in how the non-quantitative inputs influence decisions. Some disparities in funding decisions between England and Scotland are likely to remain despite recent process convergence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5577765
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55777652017-08-31 Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes Morrell, Liz Wordsworth, Sarah Fu, Howell Rees, Sian Barker, Richard BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The Scottish Medicines Consortium evaluates new drugs for use in the National Health Service in Scotland. Reforms in 2014 to their evaluation process aimed to increase patient access to new drugs for end-of-life or rare conditions; the changes include additional steps in the process to gain further information from patients and clinicians, and for revised commercial agreements. This study examines the extent of any impact of the reforms on funding decisions. METHOD: Data on the Scottish Medicines Consortium’s funding decisions during 24 months post-reform were extracted from published Advice, for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Comparison data were extracted for the 24 months pre-reform. Data on decisions for England by the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence for the same drugs were extracted from published Technology Appraisals. RESULTS: The new process was used by 90% (53/59) of cancer submissions. It is triggered if the initial advice is not to recommend, and this risk-of-rejection level is higher than in the pre-period. Thirty-eight cancer drugs obtained some level of funding through the new process, but there was no significant difference in the distribution of decision types compared to the pre-reform period. Thematic analysis of patient and clinician input showed no clear relationship between issues raised and funding decision. Differences between SMC’s and NICE’s definitions of End-of-Life did not fully explain differences in funding decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium’s reforms have allowed funding of up to 38 cancer drugs that might previously have been rejected. However, the contribution of specific elements of the reforms to the final decision is unclear. The process could be improved by increased transparency in how the non-quantitative inputs influence decisions. Some disparities in funding decisions between England and Scotland are likely to remain despite recent process convergence. BioMed Central 2017-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5577765/ /pubmed/28854927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2561-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Morrell, Liz
Wordsworth, Sarah
Fu, Howell
Rees, Sian
Barker, Richard
Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
title Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
title_full Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
title_fullStr Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
title_full_unstemmed Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
title_short Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
title_sort cancer drug funding decisions in scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28854927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2561-0
work_keys_str_mv AT morrellliz cancerdrugfundingdecisionsinscotlandimpactofnewendoflifeorphanandultraorphanprocesses
AT wordsworthsarah cancerdrugfundingdecisionsinscotlandimpactofnewendoflifeorphanandultraorphanprocesses
AT fuhowell cancerdrugfundingdecisionsinscotlandimpactofnewendoflifeorphanandultraorphanprocesses
AT reessian cancerdrugfundingdecisionsinscotlandimpactofnewendoflifeorphanandultraorphanprocesses
AT barkerrichard cancerdrugfundingdecisionsinscotlandimpactofnewendoflifeorphanandultraorphanprocesses