Evaluation of Residents’ View on Affordability of Public ...
SMC Evaluation Project The View From Industry
description
Transcript of SMC Evaluation Project The View From Industry
SMC Evaluation ProjectThe View From Industry
Martin CoombesGovernment Affairs Manager, AstraZeneca
ABPI Representative SMC Evaluation Reference Group
“The Pharmaceutical Industry is recognised as a key partner by SMC and have supported the development of a robust and transparent decision-making process.”
Life Science MessageScottish Medicines Consortium Work
SMC Evaluation Project
Management Group: Paul Catchpole
Reference Group: Martin Coombes, Jim Swift Andrew McGuigan
ABPI Scotland: Andy Powrie-Smith
SMC User Group Forum
SMC Evaluation Project
• Stakeholder engagement
• Medicines utilisation– Not recommended– Accepted for use/restricted use– SMC advice on unique treatment
• Evaluation of Budget Impact
Stakeholder Engagement• Evolving process• Industry seen as partner
– Continue to increase communication
• SMC process well recognised, timely, straightforward
• Consistent advice, but varying NHS Board processes and application, which would benefit from greater transparency
• Reduce duplication – NICE/AWMSG• More proactive patient involvement
Medicines Utilisation
Medicines Utilisation
• Not recommended
Medicines Utilisation
• Not recommended– 10 medicines remained not recommended
0.1% of the primary care spend 2005/6– Not added to formulary– No means No
Medicines Utilisation
• Not recommended– Delay of SMC advice– Limited use relative to alternative treatments– No alternative licensed products– Influence of pharmaceutical industry marketing strategy – Variation in advice issued by national bodies– Lack of engagement of relevant clinical experts in early
stages of SMC
Medicines Utilisation
• Accepted
Medicines Utilisation
• Accepted/Restricted Use– Data limitations– ‘Where alternative treatments already
exist, implementation of advice is subject to local NHS Board decision making’
– Acceptable variation?– Yes means Maybe
Unique Treatment
• Etanercept for psoriatic arthritis– HDL (2003) 60– No clean and relevant dataset– No single Scottish centre to collate data– Issues around local organisation structure
Budget Impact• Variable
– Actual vs Budget Impact• From +£3.2m to -£11.9m
– Multiple issues• Derivation unclear, Trial drop-out rates,
‘Restricted Use’, lack of uptake
– Compare actual uptake vs BI• Between NHS Boards• Other countries
Forward Look SMC Budget Impact
Key Conclusions
• Evolving and improving• Engagement
– More Pt group contact & Industry communication– Need greater understanding of local NHS Board processes
To provide consistency, transparency and accessibility
• Medicines Utilisation– Data? Variation in uptake?– When does yes mean yes?– Regular monitoring of uptake (compare with other countries)
• Budget Impact– Robust– Actual vs Budget Impact
R & D