Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Targeted Oncology
Published in: Targeted Oncology 2/2014

01-06-2014 | Review

Market access of cancer drugs in European countries: improving resource allocation

Authors: Kim Pauwels, Isabelle Huys, Minne Casteels, Katelijne De Nys, Steven Simoens

Published in: Targeted Oncology | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Public health systems need to make well-founded choices in order to distribute their scarce resources in the most efficient way. Given the number of cancer patients, public/private investments in oncology research, the growing number of new anti-cancer agents and consequent budget impact of cancer care, market access of cancer drugs has become delicate over the last decade. Furthermore, decision makers are challenged by ethical objections and endeavour to provide fair and equal access to treatments for cancer patients. The aim of this study is to generate an overview of market access procedures for cancer drugs in eight European countries and formulate advice for improvement of resource allocation. Results are obtained through a literature review and a qualitative questionnaire and validated by experts with proven knowledge about procedures for price setting and reimbursement of drugs. Diverse measures are applied in the studied countries to optimize reimbursement of cancer drugs such as adjusted cost-effectiveness threshold, regulations for off-label use and new market access agreements. Additionally, innovative cancer drugs are excluded from explicit cost control measures such as payback of budget excess by pharmaceutical companies and lump-sum payments per diagnostic related groups (DRG) in the hospital. The results suggest that cancer is prioritized above other disease areas. Further research is necessary to address the question if society attaches higher value to cancer drugs than to treatments for other diseases.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, Zalcberg J, Meropol NJ, Amir E et al (2011) Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol 12:933–980PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
10.
McCabe C, Bergmann L, Bosanquet N, Ellis M, Enzmann H, von Euler M et al (2009) Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: a current, multidisciplinary perspective. Ann Oncol 20:403–412. doi:10.​1093/​annonc/​mdn603 PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Neumann PJ, Bliss SK, Chambers JD (2012) Therapies for advanced cancers pose a special challenge for health technology assessment organizations in many countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 31:700–708CrossRef
16.
Simoens S, Dooms M (2011) How much is the life of a cancer patient worth? A pharmaco-economic perspective. J Clin Pharm Ther 36:249–256PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Vogler S, Habl C, Bogut M, Voncina L (2011) Comparing pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies in Croatia to the European Union Member States. Croat Med J 52:183–197PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Garau M, Mestre-Ferrandiz J (2009) Access mechanisms for orphan drugs: a comparative study of selected European countries. OHE briefing 52
28.
29.
Gress S, Niebuhr D, May U, Wasem J (2007) Reform of prescription drug reimbursement and pricing in the German social health insurance market: a comparison of three scenarios. Pharmacoeconomics 25:443–454PubMed
30.
Schäfer W, Kroneman M, Boerma W, van den Berg M (2010) The Netherlands Health System Review. Health Syst Transit 12
31.
Sorenson C (2010) Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 91:1–14
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Lo Scalzo A, Donatini A (2009) Italy: health system review. Health Syst Transit 11:1–243
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Le Pen C, Priol G, Lilliu H (2003) What criteria for pharmaceuticals reimbursement? An empirical analysis of the evaluation of "medical service rendered" by reimbursable drugs in France. Eur J Health Econ 4:30–36. doi:10.​1007/​s10198-002-0145-2 PubMedCrossRef
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
Anell A, Glenngard AH, Merkur S (2012) Sweden health system review. Health Syst Transit 14:1–159PubMed
65.
Wettermark B, Godman B, Andersson K, Gustafsson LL, Haycox A, Bertele V (2008) Recent national and regional drug reforms in Sweden: implications for pharmaceutical companies in Europe. Pharmacoeconomics 26:537–550PubMedCrossRef
66.
67.
68.
Boyle S (2011) United Kingdom (England): health system review. Health Syst Transit 13:1–xx
69.
70.
71.
72.
Trowman R, Chung H, Longson C, Littlejohns P, Clark P (2011) The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and its role in assessing the value of new cancer treatments in England and Wales. Clin Cancer Res 17:4930–4935. doi:10.​1158/​1078-0432.​CCR-10-2510 PubMedCrossRef
73.
74.
National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence—NICE (2013) NICE and cancer drugs — the facts. National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence — NICE. Accessed 10 April 2013
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
Maynard A, Bloor K (2011) The economics of the NHS cancer drugs fund. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 9:137–138PubMedCrossRef
81.
82.
Gerkens S, Merkur S (2010) Belgium: health system review. Health Syst Transit 12:1–266, xxv
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
Collins M, Latimer N (2013) NICE's end of life decision making scheme: impact on population health. BMJ 346:f1363PubMedCrossRef
91.
Carlson JJ, Garrison LP, Sullivan SD (2009) Paying for outcomes: innovative coverage and reimbursement schemes for pharmaceuticals. J Manag Care Pharm 15:683–687PubMed
92.
Linley WG, Hughes DA (2012) Societal views on NICE, cancer drug fund, and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great-Britain. Health Econ. doi:10.​1002/​hec.​2872 PubMed
93.
94.
95.
Metadata
Title
Market access of cancer drugs in European countries: improving resource allocation
Authors
Kim Pauwels
Isabelle Huys
Minne Casteels
Katelijne De Nys
Steven Simoens
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Targeted Oncology / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1776-2596
Electronic ISSN: 1776-260X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-013-0301-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Targeted Oncology 2/2014 Go to the issue

Original Research

Anti-leukemic response of a NSAID, tolfenamic acid

Day-to-Day Practice

A case of fatal cetuximab-induced interstitial lung disease during the first weeks of treatment

Original Research

Interplay between autophagy and apoptosis in pancreatic tumors in response to gemcitabine

Original Research

Lack of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and TP53 mutations improves outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab, oxaliplatin and UFT

Original Research

Is availability of anti-EGFR therapy for the colorectal adenocarcinomas showing fascin expression limited?

Erratum

Erratum to: Recommendations for the clinical and radiological evaluation of response to treatment in metastatic renal cell cancer
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits