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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |