The journey to sustainable and widespread improvement – medicines matter Prof Dyfrig Hughes PhD MRPharmS Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Workshop C – Evaluation Rod Taylor Complex Interventions Research Framework Masterclass 2010.
Advertisements

University of Sheffield [November/2013] School Of Health And Related.
Definitions Patient Experience Patient experience at NUH results from a range of activities that all impact upon patient care, access, safety and outcomes.
EHC Workshop on Economics and HTA’s for EU Member Organisations September 20 th, 2014 Keith Tolley Director Tolley Health Economics Ltd
1 Are you sure your improvements are cost-effective? Edward Broughton, PhD, MPH, PT University Research Co. April 11, 2014
Making Decisions in Health Care: Cost-effectiveness and the Value of Evidence Karl Claxton Centre for Health Economics, Department of Economics and Related.
We show that MP can be used to allocate resources to treatments within and between patient populations, using a policy-relevant example. The outcome is.
“Rational Pharmacology” and Health Economics By Alan Maynard.
Optimal Drug Development Programs and Efficient Licensing and Reimbursement Regimens Neil Hawkins Karl Claxton CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS.
Creating Better Health and Care Services An overview of a Better Health and Care Review process.
Balancing efficiency and equity in formal economic evaluation of health care. Erik Nord, Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Professor.
Recommendations for Conducting Cost Effectiveness: Elements of the Reference Case Ciaran S. Phibbs, Ph.D. February 25, 2009.
A METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING THE COST- UTILITY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENTAL INTERVENTIONS Quality of improved life opportunities (QILO)
End-of-life premiums in reimbursement decision making Christopher McCabe PhD Capital Health Endowed Research Chair University of Alberta.
Economic evaluation considers assessment of intervention effects in economic terms, which is often of greatest interest to fund allocators Intervention.
Departing from the health maximisation approach Social value judgements made by NICE’s advisory committees Koonal K. Shah Office of Health Economics, UK.
The Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Associated with Biologic Drugs for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis Y Bravo Vergel, N Hawkins, C Asseburg,
Michael Rawlins Chairman, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London Emeritus Professor, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Honorary.
Dangerous Omissions – the Cost of Ignoring Decision Uncertainty Mark Sculpher Susan Griffin Karl Claxton Steve Palmer Centre for Health Economics, University.
Valuation issues Jan Sørensen, Health Economist CAST – Centre for Applied Health Services Research and Technology Assessment University of Southern Denmark.
OPTIMISING MEDICINES USE GRAHAM DAVIES Professor of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics Institute of Pharmaceutical Science King’s College London.
Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Jane Cowl, Senior Public Involvement Adviser Tommy Wilkinson,
Cost-effectiveness of converting non- sedating antihistamines from prescription to over-the-counter status Michael B. Nichol, Ph.D. Patrick Sullivan, Ph.D.
Economic Evaluations, Briefly… CHSC 433 Module 6/Chapter 13 UIC School of Public Health L. Michele Issel, PhD, R N.
3rd Baltic Conference on Medicines Economic Evaluation, Reimbursement and Rational Use of Pharmaceuticals Pricing and Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals.
Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right or an expensive death? Empirical and methodological issues Rachel Baker, Helen Mason &
Cost-Effectiveness Problem l You have a $1.5 billion budget to spend on any combination of these programs:
Multiple Choice Questions for discussion
These slides were released by the speaker for internal use by Novartis.
Shared Decision Making: From the Patient’s Perspective David L. Shern, Ph.D. Mental Health America February 14, 2011 Legislative Briefing.
The Business Case for Bidirectional Integrated Care: Mental Health and Substance Use Services in Primary Care Settings and Primary Care Services in Specialty.
©The Work Foundation Stephen Bevan Director, Centre for Workforce Effectiveness The Work Foundation & Honorary Professor Lancaster University The Clinical.
Pharmacoeconomics & Drug Compliance Dr Arif Hashmi.
Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds Professor of Health Economics
Economic evaluation of drugs for rare diseases CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS K Claxton, C McCabe, A Tsuchiya Centre for Health Economics and Department of.
Basic Economic Analysis David Epstein, Centre for Health Economics, York.
انواع ارزيابي های اقتصادي سيدرضا مجدزاده مرکز تحقيقات بهره برداری از دانش سلامت و دانشکده بهداشت دانشگاه علوم پزشکي و خدمات بهداشتي درماني تهران.
Scottish Medicines Consortium - Approach to Cancer Medicines Dr Ken Paterson BOPA Symposium 13 September 2007.
3/12/2009 Decision and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis James G. Kahn after Eran Bendavid When Rationality Falters: Limitations and Extensions of Decision Analysis.
Flu Epidemiological Clinical Ethical Philosophical …and older people.
Current Challenges and Future Developments in HTA in the UK Frances Macdonald, 23 rd September 2008 (A personal, Industry View)
Pharmacist-Physician Collaborative Medication Therapy Management Services (MTMS) PI: Jan Hirsch, RPh, PhD Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH Barbara A. Levey.
PHARMAC What is PHARMAC? PHARMAC - the Pharmaceutical Management AgencyPHARMAC - the Pharmaceutical Management Agency A New Zealand Government Agency (Crown.
1 The Economics of Health Care and New Technologies Friday October 18, 2002 Between Technology and Humanity, Brussels Jan Busschbach PhD, –Department of.
Nadeem Esmail -Director, Health System Performance Studies The Bahamas Chamber of Commerce Forum March 21, 2007 Copyright © The Fraser Institute, 2007.
Capital Insight Pty Limited ABN Berry Street North Sydney NSW 2060 t f Health Economics.
Do State Parity Laws Differentially Impact Low Income or High Need Groups? Colleen L. Barry, Ph.D. Susan H. Busch, Ph.D. Yale School of Medicine June 2006.
Evaluating the Value of New Drugs and Devices Copyright ICER 2015.
NATIONAL INITIATIVES: BEST PRACTICE AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM SCOTTISH EXPERIENCE Alan MacDonald Vice Chairman Scottish Medicines Consortium Hard Choices.
Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre Challenges and opportunities for obesity research – what are the challenges faced by the NHS and where.
HTA Efficient Study Designs Peter Davidson Head of HTA at NETSCC.
Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Jane Cowl, Senior Public Involvement Adviser Tommy Wilkinson,
Why does SMC say NO We all want the most effective medicines All medicines cost money Health budgets are limited How do we choose?
© University of South Wales Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Outcomes Conference and Hub Launch Belfast, May 1, 2014 Running a tight ship:
Health Technology Assessment for Pharmaceuticals and New Medical Technologies - Where are we now? The industry perspective Jenny Hughes, Director, Vaccines.
Economic evaluation of health programmes Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health Class no. 7: Cost-effectiveness analysis – Part.
Value-Based Drug Pricing Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc.
Making Economic Evaluation Fit for Purpose to Support Decisions Mark Sculpher, PhD Centre for Health Economics University of York, UK The Third Annual.
An independent voice on the ongoing debate about reforming the HTA system in the UK Presentation for Cancer52 14 July 2015 Leela Barham
Aligning Drug Prices and Benefits: What Are Our Options? Copyright ICER 2016 Dan Ollendorf, PhD Chief Scientific Officer Institute for Clinical and Economic.
Pharmacy White Paper Building on Strengths Delivering the Future Overview.
Cost equivalence  A/Prof Dominic Wilkinson  25/2/2016 Director of Medical Ethics Oxford Uehiro
Understanding Health Economics Nicola Cooper, PhD Professor of Healthcare Evaluation Research Department of Health Sciences University of Leicester
Cost effectiveness Analysis: Valuing Health; Valuing Research!
Patient Focused Drug Development An FDA Perspective
HEALTH ECONOMICS BASICS
How are new treatments appraised
A PILOT STUDY EXAMINING CRITERIA USED TO SELECT DRUGS FOR HOSPITAL, PROVINCIAL AND NATIONAL FORMULARIES Robertson J, Newby DA, Pillay T, Walkom EJ The.
Presentation Developed for the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
Presentation transcript:

The journey to sustainable and widespread improvement – medicines matter Prof Dyfrig Hughes PhD MRPharmS Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation Bangor University

Overview 1. Economics of medicines  New medicines  Wasted medicines 2. Patients’ perspective  Preferences  Adherence

Demand Lancet DOI: /S (12)

Supply (Wales corrected to -8.3%) (Scotland corrected to -1.3%) BMJ 2011;342 doi: /bmj.d2982

Cost-effectiveness threshold Rawlins and Culyer, BMJ 2004;329: A = <£20,000 per QALY gained B = >£30,000 per QALY gained Increasing cost/QALY (log scale) Probability of rejection on grounds of cost infectiveness

“An assumption that underlies most of NICE's technology appraisals has been that “a QALY is a QALY is a QALY.” By this NICE means that a QALY gained or lost in respect of one disease is equivalent to a QALY gained or lost in respect of another. It also means that the weight given to the gain of a QALY is the same, regardless of how many QALYs have already been enjoyed, how many are in prospect, the age or sex of the beneficiaries, their deservedness, and the extent to which the recipients are deprived in other respects than health.” QALY is a QALY is a QALY Rawlins & Culyer. BMJ 2004;329:224

“I am uneasy about the mantra of ‘a QALY is a QALY is a QALY.’ It means that an increase in utility from 0.3 to 0.5 is valued the same as an increase from 0.7 to 0.9. I am not sure this is fair.” Rawlins. Value in Health 2012;15:568-9 QALY is a QALY is a QALY ^ not ^

Departing from the threshold For each £1m spent on a medicine whose ICER is twice the threshold (e.g. £50k/QALY):  Gain 20 QALYs  Lose 40 QALYs Net population loss of 20 QALYs

Departing from the threshold End-of-life criteria  Weightings applied to quality of life experienced at the end of life for life- extending medicines Cancer Drugs Fund Ultra-orphan drugs  Additional allowances in recognition of ICERs exceeding the threshold Value-Based Pricing criteria

Value-Based Pricing: Aims to Improve outcomes for patients through better access to effective medicines; Stimulate innovation and the development of high value treatments; Improve the process for assessing new medicines, ensuring transparent predictable and timely decision- making; Include a wide assessment, alongside clinical effectiveness, of the range of factors through which medicines deliver benefits for patients and society; Ensure value for money and best use of NHS resources.

Value-Based Pricing: Criteria Society may place a greater weight on treating particularly severe or life threatening conditions - SEVERITY The current system [of appraisal] may not fully reflect society’s preferences if there are no existing alternative treatments and so a significant unmet need – UNMET NEED A treatment representing a significant breakthrough … could also be represented by a qualitative assessment of the innovation reported by a new medicine reflecting, for example, new modes of action - INNOVATION Impacts of a product beyond direct health effects e.g. benefits related to reduced reliance on carers and other wider societal factors – NON-HEALTH-RELATED BENEFITS

Aligned with public preferences? Cross sectional survey (n=4,118) Asked respondents to choose between competing hypothetical patient groups

CriterionComparisonRationale ChildrenChildren vs. adultsNICE Disease rarityCommon disease vs. rare diseaseACNSS; AWMSG; SMC Disease severitySevere disease vs. moderate diseaseNICE; VBP Unmet needSeveral other treatment options available vs. none VBP CancerCancer vs. non-cancer diseaseCDF End of Life treatment Short life expectancy (18mths) vs. Longer life expectancy (60mths) NICE; AWMSG Disadvantaged populations Disadvantaged patient populations vs. Non- disadvantaged populations NICE InnovativeMedicine works in similar way to others vs. Medicine works in a new way NICE; VBP Wider societal benefits Patients reliant on carers vs. patients not reliant on carers VBP

Results Funding preferences exists for:  Severe disease  Medicines that address unmet needs  Medicines having wider societal benefits  Medicines that work in new way, but only when coupled with considerable improvement in health No funding preference for other criteria

Policy implications Value-based pricing  All 4 proposed criteria for rewarding new medicines with higher prices are supported Cancer Drugs Fund  Not supported Medicines for rare diseases  Policies that prioritise funding for rare diseases are not supported End-of-life treatments  No support for preferential funding allocation

Patients’ perspectives Patients have views too! Most patients are non-adherent most of the time Intentional non-adherence  can be thought as a revealed preference for a medicine Unintentional non-adherence  E.g. forgetting, cost barrier

Am J Med 2012; 125: % Adherence to cardiovascular medicines

Breast Cancer Res Treat Aug;122(3): Tamoxifen: Data from The Netherlands

J Clin Oncol May 1;29(13): RCT of 2 vs. 5 yrs tamoxifen

ABC project EU-funded “Ascertaining Barriers for Compliance” n=2,595 patients Prevalence  Antihypertensives Determinants  Multiple patient-, therapy-, condition-, social- and healthcare-system-related factors determine adherence

Netherlands (237) [24%] Germany (274) [33%] Austria (323) [34%] Wales (323) [38%] Belgium (180) [39%] England (323) [41%] Greece (289) [50%] Poland (323) [58%] Hungary (323) [70%] Total (2595) [44%] ■ ■ Overall non-adherence □ □ Intentional non-adherence 0% Non adherence

Odds Ratio[95% CI] Age0.98*** Employment0.74* Number of medicines0.90*** Dosage frequency1.28** Self-efficacy0.73*** Barriers (TPB)1.10* Satisfaction with practitioner1.01* Barriers1.25** Personal control0.93** Concern about illness0.96* Borrowing money0.82*** Constant34.25*** Main survey results

Stated preference

Am J Med 2012;125(9): Pay patients to adhere?

Conclusions Cost of new medicines set to increase  serious questions need to be asked about the value of new medicines  Many current criteria for prioritising treatments do not reflect societal preferences Reassuring that VBP criteria seem to be supported

Conclusions Patients don’t take their medicines  Clinical consequences  Economic consequences Methods for improving adherence needed  Must first understand the underlying reasons

He was prone to memory lapses when not taking medication for mental health problems