Cancer Drugs Fund requires further reform

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 354, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Grieve, Richard ^a   Abrams, Keith ^b   Claxton, Karl ^c   Goldacre, Ben ^d   James, Nicholas ^e   Nicholl, Jon ^f   Parmar, Mahesh ^g   Parker, Chris ^h   Sekhon, Jasjeet S ⁱ   Smeeth, Liam ^a   Spiegelhalter, David ^j   Sculpher, Mark ^c  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^h INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUDGET; CANCER DRUGS FUND; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER REGISTRY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; EDITORIAL; ENGLAND; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 84990218799     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5090     Document Type: Editorial

References (13)

1. Mayor S. New "managed access" process for Cancer Drugs Fund to go ahead, NHS England confirms. BMJ 2016;352:i1208. doi:10.1136/bmj.i1208 pmid:26926879.
2. Claxton K. Pharmaceutical pricing: early access, the Cancer Drugs Fund and the role of NICE. Centre of Health Economics, University of York, 2016. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/ che/documents/policybriefing/Drug-prices.pdf
3. McCabe C, Chilcott J, Claxton K, et al. Continuing the multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme is unjustified. BMJ 2010;340:c1786. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1786. pmid:20522655.
4. Sekhon JS, Grieve RD. A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses. Health Econ 2012;21:695-714. doi:10.1002/hec.1748 pmid: 21633989.
5. Cochrane AF. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services . Taylor and Francis, 1972.
6. van Staa TP, Dyson L, McCann G, et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1-146. doi:10.3310/hta18430. pmid: 25011568.
7. Pollard A, Reiner A, John T, et al. Expediting clinical trials in a pandemic. Electronic reponse to de Jong et al. The future of influenza. BMJ 2009. http://www.bmj.com/rapidresponse/ 2011/11/02/expediting-clinical-trials-pandemic
8. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Towse A, Dellamano R, Pistollato M. Multi-indication pricing: pros, cons and applicability to the UK. Office of Health Economics, 2015. https://www.ohe.org/ publications/multi-indication-pricing-pros-cons-and-applicability-uk
9. Parmar MK, Carpenter J, Sydes MR. More multiarm randomised trials of superiority are needed. Lancet 2014;384:283-4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61122-3 pmid:25066148.
10. Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, et al. A comprehensive algorithm for approval of health technologies with, without or only in research; the key principles for informing coverage decisions. Value Health 2016 [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.2003.
11. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification and causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91:444-55. doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902.
12. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department of Health. Accelerated access review. Interim report. Review of innovative medicines and medical technologies, supported by Wellcome Trust. 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment-data/file/471562/AAR-Interim-Report-acc.pdf
13. National Institute of Health. National Cancer Institute. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences. Health care delivery research program, SEER-Medicare linked database, 2016. http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/