Vaccines are widely regarded as one of the most important public health achievements of the last century. Health economists, however, have long highlighted the gaps between what policymakers typically count as vaccine benefits and the full benefits that vaccines confer. Failure to consider substantial portions of vaccines' full benefits, referred to as their ‘broader value’, can lead to undervaluing vaccines. This, in turn, may lead to suboptimal vaccine development, recommendation, and reimbursement decisions.
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.
The issue of rising prescription drug prices is a concern in every country. Dozens of policy initiatives and hundreds of research projects over last the fifty years have attempted to find solutions to pricing that provide an appropriate balance between the cost to health care systems and incentives for R&D. To name but a few, these include reference pricing, managed entry agreements, price-volume agreements, rebates, and risk sharing. The ultimate solution, however, remains elusive.
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.
This year’s OHE lecture addresses the question: how should the world pay for a COVID-19 vaccine? Adrian Towse, Emeritus Director of OHE and Senior Research Fellow presents the challenges that we face in developing a COVID-19 vaccine,and suggests a mechanism for buying the vaccine on a global scale. This paper was published alongside the lecture but contains additional analysis, extensive footnotes and references. Comments and feedback are welcome.
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.
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.
In the 2017 Industrial Strategy, the Government committed to increasing investment in UK Research and Development to the OECD-average of 2.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2027, with a longer-term goal of reaching 3% to put the UK in the upper quartile. Whilst there is universal agreement that increasing R&D investment in the UK is a worthy goal, there is an ongoing discussion over how best to achieve it.
OHE presents an overview on the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) in a number of selected countries in their decision-making process for health technology assessments. In addition to the different levels of CETs in these countries, this review examines whether an explicit or implicit CET is used, and the additional considerations (here termed ‘modifiers’) that are incorporated when funding and reimbursement decisions are made.