• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • JobWatch
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Report: U.K. cancer patients face increasing coverage restrictions

Report: U.K. cancer patients face increasing coverage restrictions

July 16, 2014
CenterWatch Staff

New research results quantify the extent to which centralized value assessments by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) lead to coverage denials and patient access restrictions to new drugs and biologics. The analysis, conducted by Context Matters, a healthcare information and data analytics technology platform company, and sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), shows use of centralized cost-effectiveness standards by NICE and similar appraisals in other countries limit patients’ access to new cancer treatments, which evolve rapidly and are increasingly personalized. 

According to the Context Matters analysis of NICE decisions over the last seven years (2007 to 2013): 

  • NICE rejected all six cancer medicines that it reviewed in 2013
  • Cancer medicines were more than three times likely to be rejected than non-oncology medicines
  • Nearly 60% of oncology medicines were rejected, compared to only 16% of non-oncology products
  • Almost 80% of cancer medicines reviewed in the last seven years have been given some kind of access restriction.

“These findings underscore the challenges created by coverage and payment policies that rely on centralized, one-size-fits-all value assessments,” said John J. Castellani, president and CEO, PhRMA. “While it’s important to ensure health care decisions are grounded in the best available evidence, it also is essential to ensure it is not misapplied in ways that deny patients’ access to valuable treatment advances. We need approaches that put the patient at the center of health care decision making and support patients and physicians in choosing the treatment options that best meet the individual’s needs.”

Castellani noted the five-year relative survival rates for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer are higher in the U.S. (67%, 90% and 65% respectively) than they are in the U.K. (59%, 78% and 51%, respectively).

Dr. Yin Ho, founder and CEO of Context Matters, and study author, said the findings of this analysis “calls into question whether current HTA models are sufficiently flexible to account for variability in patient needs and preferences and recognize the way that understanding of a new treatment’s value emerges over time.”

Additional analysis released by Context Matters indicated global variability in the HTA decisions of several major countries’ organizations compared with the U.K.’s NICE. NICE agreed with other agencies 56% of the time over oncology reviews, and 81% for non-oncology reviews. 

“The degree of variability of these decisions, especially for cancer medicines, illustrates the complexity of the environment our innovator companies must navigate in order to deliver life-saving medicines to patients,” said Castellani. “The fact that the same body of high quality evidence can elicit such different decisions reveals the subjective nature of these assessments.” 

Upcoming Events

  • 17May

    Three Data Trends to Consider Now When Developing Your Decentralized Clinical Trial Strategy

  • 24May

    Powering an Effective Oversight Strategy with Clinical and Operational Insights

  • 25May

    2022 WCG Avoca Quality & Innovation Summit: Own the Future

  • 28Jun

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for the Life Sciences

  • 16Oct

    WCG MAGI's Clinical Research Hybrid Conference - 2022 West

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Protocol-360x240.png

    Avoid Deviations by Making Protocol Review a Team Effort

  • SelectionProcess-360x240.png

    Give Us a Voice: Sites Clamor for a Say on Vendor Selection

  • Convince-360x240.png

    Use Data and Details to Convince Site Leadership to Add Staff

  • AsktheExpertsBadge-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Listing Trial Staff and Others on the Statement of Investigator

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing