Transcript Life beyond the Cancer Drug Fund: an update on the CDF and a

Life beyond the Cancer Drug Fund: an
update on the CDF and a view on the
sustainable commissioning of cancer
drugs in England
• Professor Peter Clark
• Medical Oncologist
• Chair of the NHS England Chemotherapy
Reference Group and of the Cancer Drug Fund
Presentation 15 January 2015
1
Background to English healthcare
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The state directs almost all of health service supply (private health insurance held
by 9%); total NHS England budget £97bn in 2014/15
Commissioning of systemic therapy (‘chemotherapy’ but not hormone therapies
prescribed by GPs for breast cancer and prostate cancer) in NHS England is central
and in Specialised Commissioning (latter’s total budget is £13bn)
Spend on chemotherapy in NHS England is £1.7bn
Drugs £1450m; tariff £250m
Of £1450m, generic £175m; NICE approved on patent £875m; CDF £390m
Baseline commissioning thus £1050m for drugs
Reimbursement via baseline: via NICE approval (legally binding for funding) or NHS
England policy (has to compete with all other spec comm cost pressures)
Reimbursement via Cancer Drugs Fund
Presentation 15 January 2015
2
Background to NICE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Drug regulatory framework has 3 common hurdles: safety, quality and efficacy
NICE: clinical effectiveness – how well does something work in comparison with
what we already use? NICE: cost effectiveness – how much more life or quality of
life do we get for the extra money we have to pay?
NICE thus added cost effectiveness as the 4th hurdle for reimbursement
A positive NICE appraisal has to be funded by the NHS: as the budget is fixed, some
other planned improvement has to be axed or delayed
A negative NICE appraisal is rarely routinely funded
Appraisals: yes in 75%, no in 25%; cancer drugs: yes in 60%, no in 40% but recently
yes 30%, no 70% (many reasons: is one the presence of the CDF?)
New cancer drugs: prices and costs rising and expensive vs other diseases
Binary outcome of appraisal: cost reduction mechanisms (Patient Access Schemes)
determined by and offered by most pharmaceutical companies
Presentation15 January 2015
3
Commissioning of new cancer drug/indication:
Timeline pre Cancer Drugs Fund
Local decision
making
NICE technology appraisal
Evidence of
benefit
Drug
licensing
Impact on baseline
commissioning (BC):
NICE yes - into BC
NICE no - rarely funded
Presentation to NHSE | 15 January 2015
4
Cancer Drug Fund: 2010-2014
•
From 2007 onwards, increasing patient, patient group, clinical, pharma and media
pressure re growing issues of NICE blight and NICE non-approval
•
CDF a Conservative Party election pledge and coalition agreement commitment
•
Originally CDF was labelled as a ‘bridge to value’ and a bridge to Value Based Pricing ie
was an interim manoeuvre prior to a long term solution of solving access
•
Clinically driven implementation: allocation £200m/year until 2013/14; first overspend
in 2013/14 and was £30m.
•
Activity and expenditure rising esp in 2014/15; budget increased to £280m
•
Potential increased overspend prevented by some NICE approvals and thus transfer of
funding of these drugs from CDF into baseline
•
Until now, entry into CDF on clinical benefit using simple scoring system evaluating
impact on PFS, OS, QOL, toxicity & unmet need plus use of wisdom & judgement
•
Since NHSE took over CDF in 2013, 65 cohort applications: 26 approved (40%)
•
CDF extended by government to April 2016
Presentation 15 January 2015
5
Late 2014 Cancer Drugs Fund: the drugs
• 84 different approved drug indications: 4 different types of drugs
• NICE appraisal negatives: clinically effective but not cost effective despite
common use of Patient Access Schemes – 37 indications, 62% applications
• Pre-NICE outcome: covers variable gap again between licensing & NICE
guidance – 14 indications, 22% applications
• Drugs below NICE’s radar (rarer cancers) – 26 indications, 12% applications
• Off label drugs – 7 indications, 3% applications
• Thus 85% of CDF drug applications in NICE’s remit, 15% beyond
• Open prioritisation meetings: clinicians, pharma, patient groups, CDF panel
• NB Cancer Drug Fund list on NHS England website: approved drugs, not
approved drugs, plus all the prioritisation tool scores of clinical benefit and
decision summaries for drugs considered since 1 April 2013
• Currently 2000 new applications per month for cohort applications
• CDF: access, speed of access, simple application process, open
Presentation 15 January 2015
6
Current Cancer Drugs Fund: the drugs
• Increasing access (23000 in 14/15) and increasing expenditure (£390m in 14/15)
• Some drugs offer substantial clinical benefit
• Some drugs offer very modest clinical benefit
• Some drugs cost <£10K per patient, some >£50k per patient, some >£100k
• What about value? It is very variable (see slide)
• Greatest value: those drugs which become NICE ‘yes’ and hence CDF offers
bridging between licensing and baseline commissioning
• Greatest value: rare cancers or rare indications for more common cancers – often
not commissioned or variably so
• Greatest value: off label use for rare cancers NB growing with molecularly
targeted agents
• Poorest value: expensive drugs offering low clinical benefit
• Poorest value: drugs offering modest/greater benefit but very highly priced
• CDF process and decisions: clinicians and patient representatives central
Presentation 15 January 2015
7
Cost per patient divided by CDF clinical
score: one estimation of value
Average Cost v Score
140000
Average Cost
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
-1
2
5
8
Score
10
13
16
Current commissioning of cancer drugs
• NICE continues to determine clinical and cost effectiveness but its role in
guiding the NHS as to value of cancer drugs has been affected: outcomes of
appraisals have been affected by drug pricing but also by necessary
assumptions in economic modelling because of: short follow-up (survival,
resource use, impact on patient pathway), cross-over design etc
• In ever greater number of appraisals, there are now more assumptions in the
economic modelling, thus uncertainty is greater….and more negative
appraisals
• C has resulted in less incentive to offer Patient Access Schemes to NICE;
some pharma still strive hard for NICE approval, others not
• NICE/CDF assess evidence from clinical trial populations of patients more
likely to over estimate gains to patients in every day practice
• There is no feedback loop of outcomes in the NHS back to NICE appraisal
• The CDF is overspent at a time of great financial pressure in the CDF
Presentation 15 January 2015
9
Timeline at present: the Cancer Drugs Fund
CDF funding
CDF depending on NICE
decision
NICE technology appraisal
Evidence of
benefit
Drug licensing
Impact on baseline
commissioning or
CDF
Presentation 15 January 2015
10
Commissioning of cancer drugs in
England
• Commissioning is central ie one policy for all England
• Cost of cancer drugs is by far the single greatest cost pressure in
Specialised Commissioning
• Power of a positive NICE appraisal: must be funded by NHS
England
• Baseline commissioning: the only safe place for commissioning –
either via NICE approval or NHSE policy (but latter is a very
competitive process within specialised commissioning)
• Political creation of the Cancer Drugs Fund
• CDF: stacking drug indications with no long term decisions as to
availability or not
Presentation 15 January 2015|
11
Current commissioning of cancer drugs
• Undermining of NICE guidance with less incentive to gain NICE approval
• NICE negative decisions: drug cost and uncertainty as to benefit
• Overspent CDF: does not offer a long term solution
• Great financial pressure in NHS England
• Pharma offered solution which kept all indications in CDF and linked level of
reimbursement to degree of clinical benefit: rejected
• ABPI were offered a different mechanism to retain all indications in CDF and link
level of reimbursement to degree of clinical benefit: rejected
• Maximal emphasis on maximising value in NHS England for healthcare
• 1: NHS England changed its CDF prioritisation procedures to combine scores of
clinical benefit and the median costs of treatment into overall scores of value and
prioritise accordingly to keep the CDF within budget
• 2: NHS England wishes to produce a sustainable way of commissioning the best
value cancer drugs
Presentation 15 January 2015
12
New CDF prioritisation procedure
• Each drug indication scored as before for impact on median progression-free
survival, median overall survival, quality of life, toxicity and CDF definition of
unmet need (is it the only systemic therapy for that disease?)
• Process is open to patient groups, pharma, clinicians
• CDF panel assesses clinical impact and scores accordingly
• There is a confidential scoring system for assessing the median drug cost which
may reflect list price or a price determined by the manufacturer
• CDF panel combines clinical and cost score and decides whether to be retained
in the CDF for existing indication or enter the CDF for new indication
• NHS England meets with the manufacturers and informs them of the overall
scores. For indications of sufficient clinical benefit to stay in the CDF but with cost
scores that bring the overall scores below the overall threshold, the
manufacturers have the option if they so choose to reduce their median costs
• NHS England publishes the clinical scores and reasoning as to inclusion and
exclusion on its website but any cost discounts remain confidential
Presentation 15 January 2015
13
New CDF prioritisation procedure outcomes
• 14/15 expenditure on November list £390m and £420m in 15/16
• 84 separate drug indications in the CDF in November 14 and lowest scoring 45
indications assessed in this recent prioritisation process
• Current best evidence assessed by CDF panel
• Some new very effective treatments being licensed
• Of 45 indications, 25 are due for removal in March 15, 18 have been retained and
2 require further consideration
• Of 25 to be removed, 17 are in effect NICE negatives; 8 never assessed by NICE
• Of 25 to be removed, 92% of applications are for NICE negative indications
• Of 25 to be removed: breast cancer, bowel cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer,
sarcoma, meloma, lymphoma
• Constructive engagement in whole process by some manufacturers
14
Presentation 15 January 2015
Commissioning of new cancer drug/indication:
Timeline at present with the Cancer Drugs Fund
Prioritisation by
Cancer Drugs
Fund
CDF funding if
prioritised
NICE technology appraisal
Evidence of
benefit
Drug licensing
Continued funding by CDF if
NICE not approved. Re-evaluation
process incorporating cost from
November 2014 and potential
removal from CDF
Impact on baseline
commissioning if
NICE approved
Presentation to NHSE | 15 January 2015
15
Commissioning of cancer drugs
• Baseline commissioning. The NHS must pay for NICE positive appraisals,
within a fixed allocation funding and is at a cost of some other commissioned
service. Most pharma still want NICE approval for cancer drugs but now have
market access route if negative. NICE is here to stay but no value-based
pricing. Baseline commissioning also possible via NHS England policy but
cancer drug policy has to compete with all other policy developments in
specialised commissioning
• Cancer Drugs Fund - increasing new drugs, some exciting drugs, ever
increasing drug costs to treat patients, £340m allocated for 2015/16 but
permanent decisions re commissioning are required
• New CDF working to remove drugs of lowest clinical benefit but also introduce
assessment of cost into prioritisation process alongside clinical benefit
• Longer term solution is for the fund to be used for ‘Commissioning through
Evaluation’ to provide evidence to both NHS and NICE of mature ‘real life’
benefits for drugs that NHSE would like to see in baseline commissioning
16
whether going to NICE or not
Commissioning of new drug/indication in proposed CDF-CtE: cancer
drug referred to NICE & positive CDF prioritisation
Positive
prioritisation by
Cancer Drugs
Fund & NICE
If mature outcome data will not change NICE re-appraisal: removed from the CDF
Cancer Drugs
Fund
funding
If mature outcome data might change
NICE re-appraisal, drug into CDF
Commissioning through Evaluation
Continue
d funding
by CDF
If no
Removed from the CDF
If no
NICE TA
review
NICE technology appraisal
Timeline
If yes
Clinical trial
results on 1o
end points
If yes
Drug licensing
Baseline
commissioning
Baseline
commissioning
17
Commissioning of new drug/indication in proposed CDF-CtE: cancer
drug referred to NICE & negative CDF prioritisation
No prioritisation
by CDF & NICE
No CDF funding as
not prioritised
NICE technology appraisal
Evidence of
benefit
Drug licensing
Impact on baseline
commissioning only
if NICE approved
Presentation to NHSE | 15 January 2015
18
Commissioning of new drug/indication in proposed CDF-CtE: cancer drug
not referred to NICE & positive CDF prioritisation
Positive
prioritisation by
Cancer Drugs
Fund
CDF Commissioning through Evaluation
Evaluation by CDF
for baseline
commissioning
Removed from CDF
If no
Timeline
Clinical trial
results on 1o
end points
Drug licensing
If yes
Baseline
commissioning
19
Commissioning of new drug/indication in proposed CDF-CtE: cancer
drug not referred to NICE & negative CDF prioritisation
No prioritisation
by Cancer Drug
Fund
Evidence of
benefit
No CDF funding as
not prioritised
Drug licensing
Presentation to NHSE | 15 January 2015
20
The Cancer Drug Fund and Commissioning
through Evaluation
• The process: the opportunity for the more highly valued cancer drugs
assessed by the CDF (whether in NICE appraisal process or not to be
appraised) to be audited for key outcomes and then be re-assessed:
outcomes could be as predicted from clinical trials, better or worse (NB
survival, utilities, resource use, effect on the patient pathway)
• Then options: return to NICE with mature data and the opportunity for a new
Patient Access Scheme if necessary and then continued funding depends on
NICE approval or not; for non-NICE drugs, assess outcomes and either into
baseline commissioning or out of the CDF
• The consequence: NHS England has to fund the baseline commissioning of
those effective drugs which do not to go to NICE ie those for rare cancers
• The NHS gains key outcome information to guide assessment of value for
consideration of baseline commissioning but which also feeds back into NICE
appraisals and guidelines: a huge contribution to England and the world
21
The Cancer Drug Fund: the upside
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increased access to cancer drugs for many patients
Best value for drugs which subsequently gain NICE approval
Best value for rarer cancers including off label indications
Prioritisation process, though very simple, works well in practice for drugs with
large and small evidence bases
Open and transparent process: run by clinicians and lay representatives;
engagement with clinicians, patients, pharma
Quick decisions and rapid release of rationales in decision summaries on NHSE
website
Presentation 15 January 2015
22
The Cancer Drug Fund: the downside
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Initial regional implementation: variation in process, variation in cohort policies,
pressure to spend allocation
As a consequence, some drugs in national CDF approved list which included
drugs of poor clinical value
Undermined impact and reputation of NICE in cancer drugs
Its planned successor, Value Based Pricing, too ambitious in terms of time scale
and implementation
CDF has reduced the pressure on drug pricing in NICE appraisals
Only information on which to assess value comes from clinical trials
A political creation and one that has not been integrated into the longer term
sustainability of chemotherapy commissioning
Presentation 15 January 2015
23
The Cancer Drug Fund and beyond
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economic hardship generally: for individuals, for governments
Ever greater pressure on healthcare budgets
Ever greater realisation of need for greatest value in healthcare
Relentless rise in pricing and costs of cancer drugs
More patients, more lines of treatment
The NHS cannot afford everything in cancer let alone other diseases
Re-prioritisation of the drugs on the CDF list and removal was inevitable
NHS focussing much more on outcomes and value as it looks for savings
By providing funding for CDF, there can be use of this money to fund a sustainable
process which helps the more effective cancer drugs that have uncertainty as to
longer term outcomes seek the safety of baseline commissioning via NICE or by NHS
England policy
Presentation 15 January 2015
24