Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cancer Drugs Fund 2.0: A Missed Opportunity?

  • Commentary
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Editorial to this article was published on 18 May 2016

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. National Audit Office. Investigation into the Cancer Drugs Fund. 2015.

  2. Dillon, A. NICE calls for a new approach to managing the entry of drugs into the NHS. Press Release.

  3. NHS England, N. Consultation on proposals for a new cancer drugs fund (CDF) operating model from April 2016. 2015.

  4. Jack A. Which way now for the Cancer Drugs Fund? BMJ. 2014;349:g5524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Your guide to PHARMAC: setting and managing the combined pharmaceutical budget (CPB). [Fact Sheet 8] p. 1–2. https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/assets/factsheet-08-combined-pharmaceutical-budget.pdf Accessed 18 March 2016.

  6. Cookson R. Can the NICE ‘End-of-Life Premium’ be given a coherent ethical justification? J Health Politics Policy Law. 2013;38:1129–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Paulden M, O’Mahony JF, Culyer AJ, McCabe C. Some inconsistencies in NICE’s consideration of social values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1043–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Unknown. New 50 million pound cancer fund already intellectually bankrupt. Lancet (London, England) 2010;376:389.

  9. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:40–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Prassad, V. Preventing cancer is biologically challenging: Rebuttal to Heidi Williams and colleagues: why use of surrogates and patent incentives won’t improve early cancer or chemoprevention drug development. Vinnay Prassad Blog. 2016.

  11. Fojo T, Mailankody S, Lo A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics—the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;1225–1236. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1570.

  12. McClellan M, Sigal E. New FDA breakthrough-drug category—implications for patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:87–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rawlins M, Dillon A. NICE discrimination. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:683–684. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013813.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. NICE. Consultation paper: value based assessment of health technologies. 2016.

  15. Claxton K. et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 2015;19:1–503, v–vi.

  16. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. NICE London 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf. Accessed 18 March 2016.

  17. Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ. Valuing health at the end of life: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Social Sci Med. 2015;1982(124):48–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pinto-Prades J-LL, Sánchez-Martínez F-II, Corbacho B, Baker R. Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Social Sci Med. 2014;1982(113):5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24:207–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has no direct funding. Christopher McCabe is funded from the Capital Health Research Chair Endowment at the University of Alberta; Mike Paulden is funded by the Genome Canada and CIHR through the PACEOMICS research programme. (www.paceomics.org)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Suite 736 University Terrace, 8303 112 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1K4, Canada

    Christopher McCabe & Mike Paulden

  2. London Borough of Wandsworth, London, UK

    Ash Paul

  3. Sheffield City Council, Room 209, Town Hall, Sheffield, S1 2HH, UK

    Greg Fell

Authors
  1. Christopher McCabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ash Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Greg Fell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mike Paulden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher McCabe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCabe, C., Paul, A., Fell, G. et al. Cancer Drugs Fund 2.0: A Missed Opportunity?. PharmacoEconomics 34, 629–633 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0403-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0403-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation