Date: 8 August 2014 10:47
Subject: Sarah Boseley 'Cancer Drugs Fund seems to help Roche most' 8th August
To: guardian.letters@theguardian.com
I was very surprised Sarah Boseley failed to mention that the Cancer Drugs Fund was originally envisaged, when launched in 2010, as a transient arrangement which would be replaced in January 2014 with the introduction of a new value based pricing system for the evaluation of drugs.
There was widespread support for the objectives set out by the Department of Health for the new system then which, six years on, have diminished as details have emerged of what this might amount to in practice.
Although final details of the system have yet to be announced, our worry, shared by many cancer and non-cancer patient organisations, is that NICE will continue to evaluate new drugs in much the same manner as it does currently.
We are saddened that what was once an innovative organisation has failed to keep pace with changes in the life sciences, development of new drugs and the methodologies appropriate for their clinical evaluation.
We urge NICE to adopt a system fit for purpose for the 21st century which recognises ‘one size does not fit all’. It is possible for an evaluation agency to do so, as the Scottish Medicines Consortium’s recently revised system demonstrates.
Until then, and with three out of the five non End of Life drugs NICE recognises as clinically effective for treatment of patients our charity represents already in the Cancer Drugs Fund, this patient organisation would unsurprisingly advocate the retention of the Fund despite the inequity of its exclusive focus on cancer.
David Ryner
CML Support Group
Correction: with reference to the 3 CML drugs already in the CDF, the final paragraph should have read:
Until then, with two out of the three non End of Life drugs already in the Cancer Drugs Fund that NICE recognises as clinically effective for treatment of patients, and with one of those three drugs NICE has recently declined to appraise, our patient organisation would unsurprisingly advocate the retention of the Fund despite the inequity of its exclusive focus on cancer.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/08/pharmaceutical-roche-bene...