Overvaluing expensive drugs

A research from University of York has concluded that NICE is overvaluing expensive treatments because its cost threshold - the price at which a treatment is deemed good value for the NHS - is set too high. The threshold value per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) - a measure of the health benefits of a treatment - should be lowered from £30,000 to just £18,317, their analysis found. It suggests the NHS may be wasting money on treatments that are not as good value as first thought. Professor Sculped said:

It is crucial that the cost effectiveness threshold is seen as representing health forgone as the additional costs of new technologies are imposed on the fixed budgets of local commissioners. For decisions made by NICE and many policy options considered by the NHS and DH, this is the key to establishing the value for money of new services.

This is a strong criticism against QALYs, let's see if it has some impact in the near future. Fortunately, the British have the opportunity to debate on it. Nearer here, the press is saying now that 30% of drugs requested for approval were rejected (7 out of 24). No details available, no website, no transparent process. That's alleged democracy, southern style. NTA=Nothing to add.

PS. If you don't want to read the article, have a look at this presentation. I suggest you save it, it may be useful for the future.

PS. As you can see from my blog, in one week, two officials have said different numbers of rejected drugs for public funding (2 vs 7). Does this make any sense? Is there anybody asking for an explanation in Parliament?

PS. Follow the controversy on DSM-5 at BBC News.

PS. Check here how our drug prices have converged to the european average.

PS. Must read: Uwe Reinhardt blog.

PS. Interesting article on 20 years of economic evaluations of cancer.

Allò que funciona

Redesigning the Clinical Effectiveness Research Paradigm: Innovation and Practice-Based Approaches: Workshop Summary

L'IOM ha posat en comú el coneixement sobre què cal fer per avaluar l'efectivitat clínica. Ha buscat els millors experts (com sempre) i han escrit un llibre fonamental pel moment que vivim i per l'onada tecnològica que s'aproxima. He repassat dues seccions, la d'en David Eddy i la d'en Mark McClellan. M'interessa el tema de la modelització predictiva i com es possible anar més enllà dels assaigs clínics controlats cap a mesurar l'impacte en models fisiològics com Archimedes. Tema clau del moment, aquest dijous podeu connectar amb una presentació que faran per internet.
En McClellan interessa per la seva visió com a regulador i veure que diu de l'efectivitat. Explica la nova llei de la FDA i l'èmfasi en la vigilància després de la comercialització. Alhora ens parla de què pot fer Medicare per l'avaluació de l'efectivitat comparada.
Serà un text de referència per a tot investigador al sector salut. El quadre que adjunto ens mostra un resum senzill i entenedor de tot plegat.

Efectivitat en salut poblacional

Comparative Effectiveness—of What?

Segueixo en Kindig des de fa anys. Les seves aportacions sobre salut poblacional han estat recollides i incorporades per molts autors. Però encara resta molt camí per recórrer. Ara ens explica que amb l'èmfasi en l'efectivitat comparada, podem perdre l'objectiu, que és precisament el de la salut poblacional. Rescata una cita de Fuchs oportuna de l'any 1974 a Who Shall Live:

How much, then, should go for medical care and how much for other
programs affecting health, such as pollution control, fluoridation of
water, accident prevention and the like? There is no simple answer,
partly because the question has rarely been explicitly asked