Public funding of new cancer drugs: Is NICE getting nastier?

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 45, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1188-1192

  Mason, Anne R ^a   Drummond, Michael F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Antineoplastic agents; Costs and cost analysis; Decision making; Drug approval; Policy making

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; NEW DRUG;

ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG RESEARCH; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DRUG APPROVAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 64049108287     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.040     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Wilking N., and Jönsson B. A pan-European comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs (2005), Karolinska Institutet and the Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm
2. Rawlins M. Paying for modern cancer care - a global perspective. Lancet Oncol 8 (2007) 749-751
3. Spencer C. The legal obligation for government funding. Oncol Exchange 6 (2007) 43-44
4. Finlay I., and Crisp N. Drugs for cancer and copayments. BMJ 337 (2008) a527
5. Jonsson B., and Wilking N. Market access for cancer drugs and the role of health economics. Ann Oncol 18 (2007) 55-66
6. Packer C., Simpson S., and Stevens A. EuroScan. International diffusion of new health technologies: a ten-country analysis of six health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22 (2006) 419-428
7. Corens D. Health systems in transition (2007), World Health Organization on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Belgium, Copenhagen
8. Berry S.R., Hubay S., Soibelman H., and Martin D.K. The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 7 (2007) 193
9. Barry M., and Tilson L. Recent developments in pricing and reimbursement of medicines in Ireland. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 7 (2007) 605-611
10. Raftery J.P. Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand. Med J Aust 188 (2008) 26-28
11. Jost T.S. Health care coverage determinations: an international comparative study (2005), Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead
12. Wild C., and Gibis B. Evaluations of health interventions in social insurance-based countries: Germany, The Netherlands, and Austria. Health Policy 63 (2003) 187-196
13. Bredesen G. Organization of health care systems and financing of pharmaceuticals in Norway, including cost containments. J Pharmaceut Finance Econ Pol 12 (2003) 351-360
14. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 20 (2004) 44-54
15. Scottish Medicines Consortium. SMC briefing note (June) (2008), SMC, Glasgow
16. Scottish Medicines Consortium, Patient Public Involvement Group. New medicines approval (2008), SMC, Glasgow
17. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Press release 2005/027: NICE to issue faster drugs guidance for the NHS (2005), NICE, London
18. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal process (2006), NICE, London, Manchester
19. Rawlins M.D., and Culyer A.J. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 329 (2004) 224-227
20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (2008), NICE, London
21. Secretary of State for Health. National Health Service Act, 1977: directions to health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts in England (2001), HMSO, London
22. Summerhayes M., and Catchpole P. Has NICE been nice to cancer?. Eur J Cancer 42 (2006) 2881-2886
23. Drummond M.F., and Mason A.R. European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol 25 (2007) 191-195
24. Low E. Many new cancer drugs in the United Kingdom are facing negative NICE rulings. J Clin Oncol 25 (2007) 2635-2636
25. Drummond M.F., and Mason A.R. In reply. J Clin Oncol 25 (2007) 2637-2638
26. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE technology appraisal guidance 33: guidance on the use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (2002), NICE, London
27. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE technology appraisal guidance 107: Trastuzumab for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (2006), NICE, London
28. StatsDirect Statistical Software (version 2.6.6). StatsDirect Ltd.; 2008.
29. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Press release 2008/040: NICE drug reviews terminated when manufacturers fail to submit evidence (2005), NICE, London
30. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Press release 1999/0485: NICE to tackle variations in treatment quality and cost (1999), NICE, London
31. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Press release 2008/066: NICE announces measures on end of life medicines (2008), NICE, London