OHE Publications

OHE releases a number of publications throughout the year, authored by OHE team members and/or outside experts. All are free for download as pdf files; hard copies of some publications are available upon request.

A description of the OHE publications categories.


 

Neri, M., Hampson, G., Henshall, C. and Towse, A.

Research Paper
September 2019

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing public health threat, limiting the ability of health care systems to prevent and treat infections and save lives. In parallel, global antibiotic development pipelines are weak. Various R&D incentives have been proposed to address the challenges associated to low economic returns from investment in antibiotics. Value assessment methods recognising the value of new antibiotics to the whole health system are needed to help match the size of the required monetary incentives to the value that they offer.

Yasunaga, H., Yamana, H., Rodes Sanchez, M. and Towse, A.

Consulting Report
September 2019

In 2015, OHE Consulting published a report on data governance arrangements for real-world evidence (RWE) covering the specifics under which RWE was used in eight different countries: Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and the US1. Two years later, Lilly commissioned a second report based on the South Korean setting, following the same method and structure as the original2.

Zamora, B., Cookson, G. and Garau, M.

Consulting Report
September 2019

In England, an estimated 378,427 people receive palliative care each year in a range of specialised and generalised services. Overall, the quality of palliative care in England and the wider UK is widely regarded as excellent. However, despite the generally high level of care, many patients receiving palliative care die in pain every year. Yet, to date, there is little evidence of the scale of this problem. This study estimates that currently there are approximately 125,971 end-of-life patients receiving, or in need of, palliative care suffering from unrelieved pain.

Berdud, M., Wallin-Bernhardsson, N., Zamora, B., Lindgren, P., and Towse, A.

Research Paper
July 2019

The present work aims to assess the life-cycle value of innovative medicines based on the example of Second-Generation Antipsychotics (SGA). Assessing the entire life-cycle of SGA, the study explores how much additional value has been delivered through additional approved indications for SGAs, generic competition or new and clinically superior formulations launched. Using risperidone as representative of the SGA class and comparing it to haloperidol – its counterpart from the First-Generation Antipsychotics (FGA) – this research estimates the life-cycle cost-effectiveness of the SGA class against FGA class in incremental terms. It also estimates the absolute social value added, measured by the sum of the consumer and producer surpluses. Study results aim to quantify the nature of value added by pharmaceutical innovation over the long-run to support consideration as to how access decisions can be informed by these life cycle effects.

Cole, A., Towse, A. and Zamora, B.

Briefing
June 2019

Cada vez más, los avances científicos desarrollan nuevas medicinas que permiten mejoras en la supervivencia y calidad de vida para diversas indicaciones terapéuticas. La fijación de precios en función de la indicación se ha propuesto como un modo de relacionar el precio con el valor. En este breve documento de debate, explicamos los aspectos más importantes como los posibles beneficios IBP, posibles inconvenientes, y consideraciones para la implementación. Nos gustaría conocer su opinión. Fecha de cierre de la consulta: lunes, 30 de septiembre de 2019.

Cole, A., Towse, A. and Zamora, B.

Briefing
May 2019

Increasingly, scientific advances are delivering new medicines that deliver improved survival and quality of life across multiple treatment indications. Indication-Based Pricing (IBP) has been proposed as a way to better link price with value. In this short Discussion Paper, we outline the major issues including the potential benefits of IBP, potential draw-backs, and considerations for implementation. We then ask for your views.

To submit your thoughts, please access the survey which accompanies the Discussion Paper or use the following link: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/IBP_Consultation

Consultation closing date: Monday, 30 September 2019.

Devlin, N., Lorgelly, P. and Herdman, M.

Research Paper
April 2019

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the issues that might limit comparability of PRO data and to highlight some of the evidence that exists on these issues. We note some of the implications for the development and use of PRO instruments, for their application in multi-country clinical trials, and for employing evidence from them in regulatory and reimbursement decisions. Although much progress has been made in this area, there is still scope for further research and improvement. Numerous factors can affect the comparability of PRO data across (and potentially within) countries and cultures. Failure to recognise and account for these differences could lead to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new medicines and other health care interventions. We suggest areas where further research and enhanced guidelines for users of PRO instruments and data would be useful.

Berdud, M., Chalkidou, K., Dean, E., Ferraro, J., Garrison, L., Nemzoff, C. and Towse, A.

Research Paper
March 2019

This OHE Research Paper focuses on the role that price transparency may play in the efficient and effective procurement of medicines by Middle and Low Income Countries. Will making prices publicly available make procurement more efficient and cost-effective medicines more accessible?

Pages