Drug appraisal organisations: A comparison of SMC and NICE John Ford, University of Aberdeen Norman Waugh, Warwick Evidence Pawana Sharma, University of.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Generating evidence to inform, difficult decisions: building capacity through investment and partnership Chris Henshall Pro Vice Chancellor for External.

Advertisements

Technology Appraisal of Medical Devices at NICE – Methods and Practice Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics University.

Dangerous Omissions: The Consequences of Ignoring Decision Uncertainty Karl Claxton Centre for Health Economics*, Department of Economics and Related Studies,

NICE and national clinical audit

Implementation of new technologies Dr Keith Cooper Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre University of Southampton.

Highly Specialised Technologies Evaluations

A safe space for engagement? Stories from the NICE front line Andrew Dillon Chief Executive National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Keith Tolley, Director, Tolley Health Economics Ltd IDF Europe Symposium 30 th September Tolley Health Economics Ltd Strategic Consulting in Health.

Evidence in action – moving from guidance to review

Patient Interest Seminar 21 st May Dr. Andrew Power Vice Chair New Drugs Sub group.

SMC Evaluation Programme. Overview Context Evaluation Programme –Stakeholders –SMC advice Conclusions.

The decision making process and the application of value judgments Francis Ruiz Senior Adviser (Health Economics) – NICE International April 2014 © NICE.

NICE and NICE’s equality programme in 2012 Nick Doyle Clinical and public health analyst.

Creating Better Health and Care Services An overview of a Better Health and Care Review process.

HTA from an Industry Perspective Janey Shin, Director of Medical Affairs Johnson & Johnson Medical Companies CADTH, 2015.

NICE and biosimilars 4 March 2015 Paul Chrisp

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in the UK - Lessons from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre.

Departing from the health maximisation approach Social value judgements made by NICE’s advisory committees Koonal K. Shah Office of Health Economics, UK.

Michael Rawlins Chairman, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London Emeritus Professor, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Honorary.

Bayesian Statistics Vague, variable, subjective to boot…

Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Jane Cowl, Senior Public Involvement Adviser Tommy Wilkinson,

Decision Analysis as a Basis for Estimating Cost- Effectiveness: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK.

Identifying evidence for decision-analytic models Suzy Paisley DoH Research Scientist in Evidence Synthesis Consensus Working Group on the Use of Evidence.

VICTORIA MACKINNON Prescribing Adviser NHS Lanarkshire.

Standards Debate at the Centre for Better Managed Health Care, Cass Business School, City University London, 26 th October Professor Mike Kelly Director.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK – Experience and Impact Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics.

Paying Less By Purchasing Smarter Gerard Anderson, PhD Professor Johns Hopkins University.

NICE Decision Making Dr Katherine Payne North West Genetics Knowledge Park The University of Manchester

TECHNOLOGY APPRAISAL IN ACTION Mrs Karen Samuels Programme Manager.

NICE: what it is and how it works Professor David Haslam, Chair, NICE 10 th June 2015.

Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds Professor of Health Economics

Drug Submissions: Review Process Agnes V. Klein, MD Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate February, 2003 www/hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut.

Healthcare rationing is used by health insurers, the government and individuals to save money. Most of us believe that if there is a treatment available,

HERU is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department. The author accepts full responsibility for this talk. Economic.

Scottish Medicines Consortium - Approach to Cancer Medicines Dr Ken Paterson BOPA Symposium 13 September 2007.

Results The final report was presented to NICE and published by NICE and WHO. See

Governance and Public Policy: a NICE example John Brazier Professor of Health Economics, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK With thanks to Matt Stevenson.

SMC Evaluation Project The View From Industry Martin Coombes Government Affairs Manager, AstraZeneca ABPI Representative SMC Evaluation Reference Group.

“What’s in it for us?” NICE Guideline: Safe and Effective use of Medicines (Medicines Optimisation) Erin Whittingham Public Involvement Adviser Public.

The Implementation Plan for Rare Diseases in Scotland abcdefghijklmnopqrstuabcdefghijklmnopqrstu.

January 2016 Preliminary Report: Unemployment Insurance Training Benefits Program JLARC Staff Mark Fleming Ryan McCord Legislative Auditor’s Conclusion:

Risk Sharing Schemes Dr Rafiq Hasan Director of Market Access

SMC and the role of Public Involvement Action Duchenne Scottish Mini Conference 4 December 2015 Lindsay Lockhart Public Involvement Officer.

NATIONAL INITIATIVES: BEST PRACTICE AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM SCOTTISH EXPERIENCE Alan MacDonald Vice Chairman Scottish Medicines Consortium Hard Choices.

Process mapping of registration to reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals in UK.

New medicines, new challenges: the SMC approach

Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Jane Cowl, Senior Public Involvement Adviser Tommy Wilkinson,

The association between European Medicines Agency approval and Health Technology Assessment recommendations Iga Lipska 1,2, Anke Hövels 2, Neil McAuslane.

The Value of Reference Case Methods for Resource Allocation Decision Making Mark Sculpher, PhD Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics.

Why does SMC say NO We all want the most effective medicines All medicines cost money Health budgets are limited How do we choose?

Health Technology Assessment for Pharmaceuticals and New Medical Technologies - Where are we now? The industry perspective Jenny Hughes, Director, Vaccines.

Statistical issues and challenges in health technology evaluation: NICE (UK) experience of clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment. James Oyee Research.

Support for the implementation of NICE Good Practice Guidance Developing and updating local formularies.

Audit on herbal study protocols reviewed by an Ethics Review Committee of a Western Medical Institution Wanigatunge CA, Warnacula G, Prathapan S Ethics.

Australian Jurisdictional Update March 2017

Making NICE research nicer Involving patients, carers and the public

The NICE Citizens Council and the role of social value judgements

How are new treatments appraised

9/17/2018 Meeting local HTA requirements Challenges for the Pharma HTA Statistician Marie-Ange PAGET Project Statistician – Lilly France EFSPI meeting.

Introduction to NICE Professor David Haslam CBE,

278 REQUEST and RESPONSE Response (275) of additional info

The publication gap in years for the cumulative percent of cited research papers in the ESMO and the UK overall cancer clinical guidelines, with the difference.

Marta Soares, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Health Economics

Regulatory and Reimbursement Harmonization

Professor of Health Economics

Dr Rosie Benneyworth Vice-Chair of NICE

An introduction to EMA’s support for medicines development

EUnetHTA Assembly May 2018.

NICE has many methods and processes

Process mapping of registration to reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals in UK Description: A systematic methodology was developed in order to create the.

Presentation transcript:

Drug appraisal organisations: A comparison of SMC and NICE John Ford, University of Aberdeen Norman Waugh, Warwick Evidence Pawana Sharma, University of Aberdeen Mark Sculpher, University of York Andrew Walker, University of Glasgow

Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC) Established in 2001 All newly licensed medications Main submission from manufacturer

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Only medications referred from Department of Health Pre-2005 – Technology Assessment Reports (TAR) Post-2005 – Single technology appraisal (STA) – Multiple technology appraisal (MTA) Various controversies

Our study What is the difference in recommendations and timelines between NICE and SMC? Has the introduction of the STA system led to speedier guidance?

Methods Drug specific approach All medications until Aug 2010 included Time – from marketing authorisation (MA) to guidance publication Appraisal outcomes – As defined by SMC or NICE

Drug demographics 140 drugs included – 57 cancer related 415 by SMC alone – 45 cancer related 102 by NICE – 27 cancer related

Recommendations

Reason for differences in recommendation Occasionally NICE allows cost per QALY >£30,000 Timings of appraisals may differ Manufacturers’ submission may not be the same Longer appraisals

Timelines (all drugs)

Reasons for differences in timelines Consultation – Number of stakeholders – Size differences – Legal challenge? Transparency – Final report

Timelines (cancer drugs)

Reasons for differences in cancer drugs Evidence base may be uncertain Cost per QALY likely to be borderline

Discussion Trade-off between transparency, consultation and timeliness How many drug appraisal bodies does the UK need?

Conclusion Small difference in recommendations between SMC and NICE SMC is considerable speedier than NICE STA system has led to speedier decisions, but not for cancer drugs Increased time is probably due to consultation and transparency

Any questions?