Firth, I., Schirrmacher, H., Zhang, K., Towse, A. and Hampson, G.
Gene therapies represent a paradigm shift in medicine, with the potential to address the root causes of chronic diseases. They offer one-time treatment regimens and, in some cases, potentially a cure. As a result, they offer transformative value for patients, physicians, health systems and society. However, with the prospect of more gene therapy approvals there is concern in Europe that these technologies could threaten the financial sustainability of health systems.
Berdud, M., Jofre-Bonet, M., Rodes-Sanchez, M., Towse, A.
After the shock caused by the first wave of COVID-19, discovering vaccines against the virus and administering them quickly to the population became the utmost priority worldwide, especially once subsequent waves of COVID-19 were inevitable. Not only incentivising the research on vaccines and authorising them quickly, but managing optimally the portfolio of vaccine candidates and establishing an efficient distribution plan became paramount to the success of this instrument.
We have now published an interactive report on our recent debate, The Promise of Gene Therapy: Are we Ready?
In a webinar held on 16 March 2021, Mary Harney, Annie Hubert and Simone Boselli joined OHE’s Adrian Towse to debate the issues surrounding the adoption of gene therapies. In the interactive report we highlight our 5 key takeaways from the debate with clips, quotes and highlights.
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the broad and devastating health, economic and societal impact of a highly infectious and deadly disease. In addition to the human suffering of COVID-19 patients, the pandemic is taking a heavy toll patients’ families, friends, colleagues, and other social networks. On healthcare staff working around the clock, wave after wave. And on the capacity of the NHS, buckling under the pandemic pressures with consequences that will last for years. Then, there’s the disastrous economic impact, crippling economies in the UK and worldwide.
Towse, A., Lothgren, M., Steuten, L. and Bruce, A.
Using medicines in combination can deliver better outcomes for patients across different tumour types and disease stages. Yet many HTA agencies do not find that the expected additional benefits from adding a new medicine to a currently reimbursed medicine represents value for money to the health system. In markets that utilise cost-per-QALY approaches for assessing value, a clinically effective medicine might even be found to be “not cost-effective at zero price” when used as part of a regimen that increases treatment duration.
Histology independent therapies, a new class of medicines that target cancer based on specific genomic or molecular alterations of cancer cells rather than tissue of origin, face significant methodological and policy hurdles related to evidence development and acceptance, value assessment and reimbursement pathways, and diagnostic infrastructure availability.
This paper presents a supply and demand model of pharmaceutical markets to analyse the relationship between the value of the Cost-Effectiveness Threshold (CET) and the distribution of the health and economic value of new medicines between consumers (payers) and developers (life science industry). As a novelty, the model incorporates a bargaining process and bargaining power distributed between the payer and the developers, which has an impact on the distribution of the health and economic value of new medicines between the two parties.
Most value assessments of vaccination programs are carried out by taking the perspective of the health system. To stimulate the debate concerning the broader value of vaccination beyond this perspective, this report quantifies the related return on investment to the UK government.
Brassel, S., Neri, M., O’Neill, P. and Steuten, L.
Many health technology assessment (HTA) agencies limit their assessment of vaccines to individual health benefits and the costs associated with vaccine administration and the disease avoided. However, compared to other health technologies, the standard evaluation approaches have often been criticised as inadequate to accurately estimate the value of vaccines.
The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) makes recommendations for the use of interventions including medicines in the National Health Service in England based on their clinical and cost-effectiveness. Over the last 20 years 82% of technology appraisal recommendations have been ‘positive’. However, around one third of these are ‘optimised’ recommendations. In this report we quantify the patient access associated with NICE ‘optimised’ recommendations.