Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

Medscape

In the United States, approximately 14 million people have had cancer and more than 1.6 million new cases are diagnosed each year. However, more than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, the barriers to achieving excellent care for all cancer patients remain daunting. Care often is not patient-centered, many patients do not receive palliative care to manage their symptoms and side effects from treatment, and decisions about care often are not based on the latest scientific evidence. The cost of cancer care also is rising faster than many sectors of medicine--having increased to $125 billion in 2010 from $72 billion in 2004--and is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020. Rising costs are making cancer care less affordable for patients and their families and are creating disparities in patients' access to high-quality cancer care. There also are growing shortages of health professionals skilled in providing cancer care, and the number of adults age 65 and older--the group most susceptible to cancer--is expected to double by 2030, contributing to a 45 percent increase in the number of people developing cancer. The current care delivery system is poorly prepared to address the care needs of this population, which are complex due to altered physiology, functional and cognitive impairment, multiple coexisting diseases, increased side effects from treatment, and greater need for social support. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis presents a conceptual framework for improving the quality of cancer care. This study proposes improvements to six interconnected components of care: (1) engaged patients; (2) an adequately staffed, trained, and coordinated workforce; (3) evidence-based care; (4) learning health care information technology (IT); (5) translation of evidence into clinical practice, quality measurement and performance improvement; and (6) accessible and affordable care. This report recommends changes across the board in these areas to improve the quality of care. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis provides information for cancer care teams, patients and their families, researchers, quality metrics developers, and payers, as well as HHS, other federal agencies, and industry to reevaluate their current roles and responsibilities in cancer care and work together to develop a higher quality care delivery system. By working toward this shared goal, the cancer care community can improve the quality of life and outcomes for people facing a cancer diagnosis.

/pdf/delivering-high-quality-cancer-care-charting-a-new-course-2u1fq5ml3k.pdf

Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

Antibodies and related products are the fastest growing class of therapeutic agents. By analysing the regulatory approvals of IgG-based biotherapeutic agents in the past 10 years, we can gain insights into the successful strategies used by pharmaceutical companies so far to bring innovative drugs to the market. Many challenges will have to be faced in the next decade to bring more efficient and affordable antibody-based drugs to the clinic. Here, we discuss strategies to select the best therapeutic antigen targets, to optimize the structure of IgG antibodies and to design related or new structures with additional functions.

Strategies and challenges for the next generation of therapeutic antibodies

Novel treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis

In this paper, we examine the clinical and economic challenges that face developers of and payers for personalized drugs and companion diagnostics. We review and summarize clinical, regulatory and reimbursement issues with respect to eight, high profile personalized medicines and their companion diagnostics. Subsequently, we determine Medicare parts B and D reimbursement of the eight drugs from publicly available databases. Finally, we utilize surveys-each tailored to three key stakeholders; payers, drug and diagnostic developers, and pharmacogenomic expert analysts-to assess reimbursement of diagnostics, analyze the role that different kinds of evidence have in informing prescribing and reimbursement decisions, as well as the specific clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that confront pharmacogenomics as it moves forward. We found that Medicare beneficiary access to physician-administered (Medicare part B) drugs is relatively unfettered, with a fixed patient co-insurance percentage of 20%. More reimbursement restrictions are placed on self-administered (Medicare part D) drugs, which translates into higher and more variable cost sharing, more use of prior authorization and quantity limits. There is a lack of comprehensive reimbursement of companion diagnostics, even in cases in which the diagnostic is on the label and recommended or required by the Food and Drug Administration. Lack of evidence linking diagnostic tests to health outcomes has caused payers to be skeptical about the clinical usefulness of tests. Expert analysts foresee moderate growth in post-hoc development of companion diagnostics to personalize already approved drugs, and limited growth in the concurrent co-development of companion diagnostics and personalized medicines. Lack of clinically useful diagnostics as well as an evidence gap in terms of knowledge of drug and diagnostic clinical effectiveness appear to be hindering growth in personalized medicine. An increase in comparative effectiveness research may help to close the evidence gap.

Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics

Appropriate self treatment is an important aspect of both the European and American healthcare systems, but what is really driving increased over the counter availability?

Increased numbers of prescription drugs are being made available over the counter worldwide. Recent high profile switches have included drugs in classes previously not eligible, such as omeprazole in Sweden and simvastatin in the United Kingdom. Switches are motivated mainly by three factors: pharmaceutical firms' desire to extend the viability of brand names; attempts by healthcare funders to contain costs; and the self care movement. Making drugs available over the counter affects a large number of stakeholders, including patients, pharmaceutical firms, physicians, pharmacists, drug regulatory agencies, and private and public health funding organisations. In this article, we illustrate the roles that pharmaceutical firms, healthcare organisations, and government regulatory agencies played in three recent switches that have fuelled global debate: simvastatin in the United Kingdom, omeprazole in Sweden, and loratadine in the United States.

Generally, a prescription drug becomes a candidate for over the counter availability if it is used for a non-chronic condition that is relatively easy to self diagnose and has low potential for harm from abuse under conditions of widespread availability. Statins do not fit this description. Much has been said about the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's controversial decision in May 2004 to reclassify simvastatin 10 mg as an over the counter medicine. In a best case scenario, the switch will increase use of simvastatin by people at moderate risk of developing coronary heart disease, resulting in reduced risk. However, there have been no clinical trials of over the counter statins for primary prevention of heart disease.

Concern has been raised that the main motive behind the government's decision to allow simvastatin to be sold directly to the public is …

/pdf/switching-prescription-drugs-to-over-the-counter-50mq2coizi.pdf

Switching prescription drugs to over the counter

We have identified eight sub-dimensions of patient access to pharmaceuticals: marketing approvals, time of marketing approval, coverage, cost sharing, conditions of reimbursement, speed from marketing approval to reimbursement, extent to which beneficiaries control choice of their drug benefit, and evenness of the availability of drugs to the population. For a sample of commonly used best-selling drugs in the United States (US), we measured these eight access sub-dimensions across four health systems: France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), and the US. Although the US approved between 15 and 18% more drugs than the other three countries, the US was slower than France and the UK to approve drugs licensed in all four countries. The percentage of drugs covered is approximately the same for all four countries. For covered drugs, we observe the least cost sharing by patients in the Netherlands. The Netherlands imposes conditions of reimbursement on a much larger percentage of drugs. France seems to be the slowest in respect of speed from marketing approval to reimbursement. The US is the most flexible in terms of the extent to which beneficiaries control their choice of drug benefit but it is the least universal in terms of evenness of the availability of drugs to the population. Our study confirms the frequently cited problems of access in European countries: lag between marketing approval and reimbursement, and inflexibility in respect of the extent to which beneficiaries control their choice of drug benefit. At the same time, our study confirms, qualitatively, different kinds of access problems in the US: relatively high patient cost sharing for pharmaceuticals, and wide variation in coverage.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/27823120

Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison

Background : Some orphan drugs can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually per patient. As a result, payer sensitivity to the cost of orphan drugs is rising, particularly in light of increased numbers of new launches in recent years. In this article, we examine payer coverage in the United States, England and Wales, and the Netherlands of outpatient orphan drugs approved between 1983 and 2012, as well as the 11 most expensive orphan drugs. Methods : We collected data from drug regulatory agencies as well as payers and drug evaluation authorities. Results : We found that orphan drugs have more coverage restrictions than non-orphan drugs in all three jurisdictions. From an economic perspective, the fact that a drug is an orphan product or has a high per-unit price per se should not imply a special kind of evaluation by payers, or necessarily the imposition of more coverage restrictions. Conclusion : Payers should consider the same set of decision criteria that they do with respect to non-orphan drugs: disease severity, availability of treatment alternatives, level of unmet medical need, and costeffectiveness, criteria that justifiably may be taken into account and traded off against one another in prescribing and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. Keywords : orphan drugs; reimbursement; pricing (Published: 15 January 2014) Citation: Journal of Market Access & Health Policy 2014, 2 : 23513 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v2.23513

Are payers treating orphan drugs differently

There are three known criteria that underlie drug reimbursement decisions: therapeutic value, cost effectiveness and burden of disease. However, evidence from recent reimbursement decisions in several jurisdictions points to residual unexplained variables, one of which may be budget impact. An economic rationale for carrying out budget impact analyses is opportunity cost, measured by the economic benefits foregone by using resources in one way rather than another. Under certain assumptions, cost-effectiveness analysis accounts for opportunity cost while conveying to the decision maker the price of maximising health gains, subject to a budget constraint. However, the underlying assumptions are implausible, particularly in the context of pharmaceutical care. Although drugs that are cost effective may lead to unambiguous health gains among patient groups for whom the drugs are indicated, the opportunity costs could conceivably lead to a reduction in aggregate health gains, or failure to meet different kinds of equity considerations. The pertinent policy question is where to find the resources to fund new innovations, such as cost-effective pharmaceuticals, or drugs targeting severe diseases. It may be a matter of redeployment of resources across healthcare sectors, cancelling the funding of (older) pharmaceuticals that are less cost effective, or delisting drugs that are cost effective but target less burdensome conditions.

Joshua Cohen

Papers

Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics

Switching prescription drugs to over the counter

Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison

Are payers treating orphan drugs differently

The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals