Cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs: Comparative analysis of the United States and England

Abstract

Background: England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the US' Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) both conduct cost-effectiveness evaluations for new cancer drugs to help payers make drug coverage decisions. However, NICE and ICER assessments have been noted to reach different conclusions. We aim to better understand the degree to which their recommendations diverge and what drives these apparent differences. Methods: We compared the methods and results of publicly available cost-effectiveness evaluations performed by ICER and NICE of similarly assessed cancer drugs. Assessments were compared based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparator treatment, price, recommendation, and the design of the economic evaluation. Findings: Among 11 commonly assessed cancer drugs, ICER and NICE were in concordance for 7 evaluations and in discordance on the cost-effectiveness and coverage decisions for 4 drugs. Most new cancer drugs were not cost-effective in either the US (7/11) or England (7/11). Furthermore, NICE's capacity to negotiate price discounts and access schemes result in much lower cost per QALY valuations and more favourable recommendations than those of ICER for similarly assessed cancer drugs. Interpretations: NICE and ICER employ similar health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies and were aligned with most recommendations, finding that many new and expensive cancer drugs are cost ineffective. Growing use of ICER assessments will continue to send stronger price signals to manufacturers that cancer drugs with low value for money will be viewed less favourably by private insurers. NICE provides an important reminder of how much lower other countries pay for drugs when comparative effectiveness and valuebased pricing are integrated into public drug coverage decisions.

Cost-Sharing Reform for Chronic Disease Treatments as a Strategy to Improve Health Care Equity and Value in the US

“…7 Nonetheless, for some conditions such as in oncology, newly approved drugs are not proven to be cost-effective and thus caution must be taken when considering cancer therapies as ideal targets for value-based cost-sharing reform. 8 The current cost-sharing system also directly propagates health inequity. Theoretical evidence from health care economics suggests that cost-sharing schemes ought to be scaled in proportion to disposable income to maximize their effect.…”

Comparison of 3 Randomized Clinical Trials of Frontline Therapies for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

“…The present study emphasizes the need for more RCTs and realworld evidence for clinical decision-making policies. 19 This is especially true for the nonepithelioid group in CM743, which was not prespecified in the protocol and should be considered hypothesis generating.…”

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Ribociclib to Endocrine Therapy for Patients With HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer Among Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women

“…Ribociclib is not alone in this regard. A recent study assessed the cost-effectiveness evaluations of cancer drugs conducted by the US's Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and found that most new cancer drugs were not cost-effective (40). In the US, regulatory approvals are not tied to costs and the complicated network of multiple payers in the healthcare system is associated with less negotiating power to obtain substantial drug discounts with manufacturers as compared to other countries with single-payer health care systems.…”