Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes

Abstract

BackgroundThe Scottish Medicines Consortium evaluates new drugs for use in the National Health Service in Scotland. Reforms in 2014 to their evaluation process aimed to increase patient access to new drugs for end-of-life or rare conditions; the changes include additional steps in the process to gain further information from patients and clinicians, and for revised commercial agreements. This study examines the extent of any impact of the reforms on funding decisions.MethodData on the Scottish Medicines Consortium’s funding decisions during 24 months post-reform were extracted from published Advice, for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Comparison data were extracted for the 24 months pre-reform. Data on decisions for England by the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence for the same drugs were extracted from published Technology Appraisals.ResultsThe new process was used by 90% (53/59) of cancer submissions. It is triggered if the initial advice is not to recommend, and this risk-of-rejection level is higher than in the pre-period. Thirty-eight cancer drugs obtained some level of funding through the new process, but there was no significant difference in the distribution of decision types compared to the pre-reform period. Thematic analysis of patient and clinician input showed no clear relationship between issues raised and funding decision. Differences between SMC’s and NICE’s definitions of End-of-Life did not fully explain differences in funding decisions.ConclusionsThe Scottish Medicines Consortium’s reforms have allowed funding of up to 38 cancer drugs that might previously have been rejected. However, the contribution of specific elements of the reforms to the final decision is unclear. The process could be improved by increased transparency in how the non-quantitative inputs influence decisions. Some disparities in funding decisions between England and Scotland are likely to remain despite recent process convergence.

A Review of Rare Disease Policies and Orphan Drug Reimbursement Systems in 12 Eurasian Countries

“…Reorganization, grouping, and renaming of registries is common. Other 33 , (76-84) 34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47 , (67, 85, 86) 1,48 , (87) 2,3 , (88, 89) 4,5 , (90, 91) 6,7,8,9 , (92,93).…”

Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland

“…In Scotland, a series of reforms were instigated in 2014, which were designed to increase patient access to new drugs for orphan diseases, such as some types of GEP-NETs, as well as drugs used for end of life care (defined as a disease stage where death usually occurs within 3 years) [ 38 ]. The SMC have also previously reported that higher ICERs and/or greater uncertainty may be accepted for new treatments for orphan diseases or for agents that confer a considerable improvement in life expectancy (i.e.…”

Cancer as the “perfect storm”? A qualitative study of public attitudes to health conditions

“…The value‐based pricing initiative of 2010 proposed additional weighting factors for decision‐making and included severity and carer impact . The SMC's Patient and Clinician Engagement process provides a mechanism to identify additional aspects of value, and themes discussed have included hope, independence, and toxicity . A recent independent review of SMC funding decisions proposed development of a “basket” of measures, to include wider societal benefits .…”

“…38 The SMC's Patient and Clinician Engagement process provides a mechanism to identify additional aspects of value, 17 and themes discussed have included hope, independence, and toxicity. 39 A recent independent review of SMC funding decisions proposed development of a "basket" of measures, to include wider societal benefits. 40 Our findings may also point to aspects of health care that matter to the public beyond health maximization.…”