Move to boost openness on NHS drugs by NICE
The labour government's medicines advisory body will from this autumn open to public scrutiny the work of the committees that decide whether the health service should pay for new drugs. In a ground breaking move to boost transparency, Sir Michael Rawlins, the chairman of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), told MPs that the action marked the latest in its efforts to boost transparency and that it had been a matter of "regret" that its committees had previously met in private.
While the agency's decisions are always made public in written form, Mr Rawlins conceded that it was useful to observe the discussion rather than simply reading about it afterwards.
His announcement was made on the first day of an inquiry launched by the House of Commons' health select committee into the operations of Nice, the second since it was launched in 1999 to advise the government on the efficacy and cost effectiveness of new medicines.
It comes at a time of growing criticism of Nice by pharmaceutical companies and patient organisations after a number of rulings that advised against the NHS paying for drugs for patients. In the case of an Alzheimer's drug, this will lead to a judicial review next month over the agency's refusal to release information on how the calculations were made.
The new policy of openness would apply to the deliberations of Nice's five standing advisory bodies, which study drugs, treatments, surgical procedures and public health.
Andrew Dillon, Nice's chief executive, told the FT that the decision put it ahead of practices adopted by equivalent agencies in other countries.
But he cautioned that the agency was still considering some of the practical issues involved. These include changes to the five day review period given to interested parties before decisions are made public, and how to release price sensitive information such as approval of a drug developed by a listed company.
Sir Michael cautioned that while Nice could play a role in the Office of Fair Trading's proposals for a newvalue-based pricing mechanism for drugs in the UK, it would represent "a massive workload" and there were not enough health economists in the country to cope.
Department of Health officials came under criticism from MPs on the committee over the resources made available to local primary care trusts to implement Nice decisions, and the inadequacy of government powers to penalise them if they failed to do so. *GPs could save the NHS more than £200m a year by prescribing lower-cost but perfectly effective drugs, the National Audit Office said yesterday, while patients waste drugs worth at least £100m a year by not taking them.
From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8a923270-04db-11dc-80ed-000b5df10621.html
Health Direct questions Sir Michael Rawlins's claim that he regrets that its committees had previously met in private when several drug companies are having to take the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure to court in an attempt to find out how it justifies it's cost beneafit analysis on drug useage.
On Nov 17, 2006 Health Direct posted: Drugs watchdog faces legal review- NICE's approach is irrational and flawed when a decision by the labour government's drugs watchdog to restrict the use by the NHS of Alzheimer's medication is to be challenged in court.
Two drug companies plan to apply for a judicial review of the way the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reached its conclusion. NICE ruled NHS patients with newly diagnosed, mild Alzheimer's disease should not be prescribed the drugs.
To it's credit it "only" took that MPs three months to wake up to the increase in legal activities against NICE.
Earlier this year on 7 Feb 07 Health Direct posted :NICE faces inquiry by Commons MPs group when the Commons health committee announced terms of reference for a broad inquiry into the work of NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
The committee said it wanted to examine "why Nice's decisions are increasingly being challenged" after recent controversial recommendations that the NHS should not use certain costly cancer drugs and should restrict the use of drugs to treat Alzheimer's to those with moderate forms of the disease.
While the agency's decisions are always made public in written form, Mr Rawlins conceded that it was useful to observe the discussion rather than simply reading about it afterwards.
His announcement was made on the first day of an inquiry launched by the House of Commons' health select committee into the operations of Nice, the second since it was launched in 1999 to advise the government on the efficacy and cost effectiveness of new medicines.
It comes at a time of growing criticism of Nice by pharmaceutical companies and patient organisations after a number of rulings that advised against the NHS paying for drugs for patients. In the case of an Alzheimer's drug, this will lead to a judicial review next month over the agency's refusal to release information on how the calculations were made.
The new policy of openness would apply to the deliberations of Nice's five standing advisory bodies, which study drugs, treatments, surgical procedures and public health.
Andrew Dillon, Nice's chief executive, told the FT that the decision put it ahead of practices adopted by equivalent agencies in other countries.
But he cautioned that the agency was still considering some of the practical issues involved. These include changes to the five day review period given to interested parties before decisions are made public, and how to release price sensitive information such as approval of a drug developed by a listed company.
Sir Michael cautioned that while Nice could play a role in the Office of Fair Trading's proposals for a newvalue-based pricing mechanism for drugs in the UK, it would represent "a massive workload" and there were not enough health economists in the country to cope.
Department of Health officials came under criticism from MPs on the committee over the resources made available to local primary care trusts to implement Nice decisions, and the inadequacy of government powers to penalise them if they failed to do so. *GPs could save the NHS more than £200m a year by prescribing lower-cost but perfectly effective drugs, the National Audit Office said yesterday, while patients waste drugs worth at least £100m a year by not taking them.
From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8a923270-04db-11dc-80ed-000b5df10621.html
Health Direct questions Sir Michael Rawlins's claim that he regrets that its committees had previously met in private when several drug companies are having to take the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure to court in an attempt to find out how it justifies it's cost beneafit analysis on drug useage.
On Nov 17, 2006 Health Direct posted: Drugs watchdog faces legal review- NICE's approach is irrational and flawed when a decision by the labour government's drugs watchdog to restrict the use by the NHS of Alzheimer's medication is to be challenged in court.
Two drug companies plan to apply for a judicial review of the way the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reached its conclusion. NICE ruled NHS patients with newly diagnosed, mild Alzheimer's disease should not be prescribed the drugs.
To it's credit it "only" took that MPs three months to wake up to the increase in legal activities against NICE.
Earlier this year on 7 Feb 07 Health Direct posted :NICE faces inquiry by Commons MPs group when the Commons health committee announced terms of reference for a broad inquiry into the work of NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
The committee said it wanted to examine "why Nice's decisions are increasingly being challenged" after recent controversial recommendations that the NHS should not use certain costly cancer drugs and should restrict the use of drugs to treat Alzheimer's to those with moderate forms of the disease.
Labels: Alzheimers, Commons-Health-Committee, drug-cutbacks, MPs, NICE-blight
posted by Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic at
8:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home