corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15843

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Bowie C.
NICE opens consultation on patient access and flexible pricing
PharmaTimes 2009 Jun 19
http://www.pharmatimes.com/WorldNews/article.aspx?id=16077


Full text:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has launched a one-month consultation period to review patient access and flexible pricing schemes as part of a product’s appraisal for use on the National Health Service.

The health watchdog had originally planned to publish updated guides to its single and multiple technology appraisal processes this month following an original consultation last December, but additional requirements laid out within the 2009 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme triggered the delay. “We feel it is important that our stakeholders are able to comment on this, and are therefore consulting for one month,” the Institute says in a statement issued today. The consultation period will run until 5pm on 20 July.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Department of Health published their agreement on a new Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme in January 2009, allowing manufacturers to submit proposals for patient access schemes or flexible pricing arrangements either as part of an ongoing or concluded NICE decision.

The move comes as patient access schemes (also known as risk-sharing schemes) seem to be gaining in popularity, as drugmakers increasingly look to new ways of getting their drugs past the cost effectiveness watchdog and onto the NHS treatment menu before sufficient outcomes data can be collected.

The crux of such schemes is to facilitate patient access to novel therapies while ensuring that their cost falls below the threshold set by NICE, by deferring or refunding payment for therapies considered to be ineffective in certain patients, so that the NHS only picks up the tab in cases where the treatment has shown a beneficial impact.

To have your say go to:
http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyapprais
alprocessguides/reviewofthesingleandmultipletechnologyappraisalprocesses
.jsp

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963