ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2010
Value based pricing, research and development, and patient access schemes. Will the United Kingdom get it right or wrong?
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comprehensive value-based method for new nuclear medical service pricing: with case study of radium [223BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Expanding access to high-cost medicines under the Universal Health Coverage scheme in Thailand: review of current practices and recommendations.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Views of European Drug Development Stakeholders on Treatment Optimization and Its Potential for Use in Decision-Making.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Immuno-Oncology Medicines: Policy Implications and Economic Considerations.Innovations in pharmacy · 2019Review
- Risk-Sharing Agreements in the EU: A Systematic Review of Major Trends.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2018Review
- Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017Article
- World health dilemmas: Orphan and rare diseases, orphan drugs and orphan patients.World journal of methodology · 2014Review
- Market Access Agreements for pharmaceuticals in Europe: diversity of approaches and underlying concepts.BMC health services research · 2011Review
- Value-based pricing: incentive for innovation or zero net benefit?PharmacoEconomics · 2011Article
- Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2011Article
- From NCE to NICE: the role of pharmacoeconomics.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Health Service (NHS) should reward innovation it values. This will enable the NHS and the United Kingdom (UK) economy to benefit and impact positively on the Research and Development (R&D) decision making of companies. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) currently seeks to do this on behalf of the NHS. Yet the Office of Fair Trading proposals for Value Based Pricing add price setting powers--initially for the Department of Health (DH) and then for NICE. This introduces an additional substantial uncertainty that will impact on R&D and, conditional on R&D proceeding, on launch (or not) in the UK. Instead of adding to uncertainty the institutional arrangements for assessing value should seek to be predictable and science based, building on NICE's current arrangements. The real challenge is to increase understanding of the underlying cost-effectiveness of the technology itself by collecting evidence alongside use. The 2009 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme sought to help do this with Flexible Pricing (FP) and Patient Access Schemes (PASs). The PASs to date have increased access to medicines, but no schemes proposed to date have yet helped to tackle outcomes uncertainty. The 2010 Innovation Pass can also be seen as a form of 'coverage with evidence development.' The NHS is understandably concerned about the costs of running such evidence collection schemes. Enabling the NHS to deliver on such schemes will impact favourably on R&D decisions. Increasing the uncertainty in the UK NHS market through government price setting will reduce incentives for R&D and for early UK launch.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.