Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online October, 2023
Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021
This study aimed to compare reimbursement recommendations by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors.
Methods
Public assessment reports published on NICE and HAS Web sites between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021, describing appraisals for public reimbursement for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors were searched and systematically reviewed. Biosimilars and generic drugs were excluded from the analysis.
Results
Overall, 119 public assessment reports published by NICE and 134 by HAS were identified, with 101 interventions assessed by both agencies. Of 101, 38 (38%) interventions received similar recommendations, 38 (38%) were recommended for different populations, and 25 (25%) were endorsed by one agency but rejected by the other. The main reason NICE would not recommend a drug was due to lack of cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS would primarily reject a drug on the grounds of insufficient clinical evidence.
Conclusion
The major divergence between agencies is the key criterion used for reimbursement recommendations. NICE mainly considers cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS primarily focuses on the clinical value of interventions. This contributes to the variability in reimbursement recommendations and leads to differential access to oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors among patients in France, and England and Wales.
Highlights
Both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) have established formal health technology assessment (HTA) processes and offer universal public health care coverage. However, both agencies diverge in the weight given to different elements of evidence during HTA evaluations. NICE uses cost-effectiveness as key criterion for recommendations on drug reimbursement, while HAS mostly limits its assessment to clinical value.
For oncology new medicines indicated for treating solid tumors between 2015 and 2021, recommendations differed 62% of the time between NICE and HAS, primarily due to the distinct key decision-making criteria each HTA agency uses.
For 4 interventions not endorsed by NICE, HAS saw these drugs as providing a substantial enhancement in clinical value over existing treatments, potentially providing an edge in price negotiations. Conversely, NICE deemed these drugs as not delivering adequate value for money in comparison with current therapies.
A key difference between the 2 agencies is HAS’s insistence on methodological rigor in efficacy results, compared with NICE’s more flexible approach, considering descriptive efficacy results in cost-effectiveness modeling.
EichlerHGThomsonAEichlerISchneeweissS.Assessing the relative efficacy of new drugs: an emerging opportunity. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:443–4.
2.
JemalACenterMMDeSantisCWardEM.Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1893–907.
3.
KristensenFB.Health technology assessment in Europe. Scand J Public Health. 2009;37:335–9.
4.
SorensonCDrummondMKanavosP.Ensuring Value for Money in Health Care: The Role of Health Technology in the European Union. Observatory Studies Series N°11. Bodmin (UK): MPG Books; 2008.
5.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMC.Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
6.
NeumannPJSandersGDRussellLBSiegelJEGaniatsTG.Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.
7.
SandersGDMaciejewskiMLBasuA.Overview of cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 2019;321(14):1400–1.
8.
NewdickC.Evaluating new health technology in the English national health service. In: JostTS, ed. Health Care Coverage Determinations: An International Comparative Study. Maidenhead (UK): Open University Press; 2005. p 88–114.
9.
CulyerAJMaynardAK.Cost-effectiveness of duodenal ulcer treatment. Soc Sci Med Med Econ. 1981;15C(1):3–11.
10.
CulyerTMaynardAK.Being Reasonable about the Economics of Health: Selected Essays by Alan Williams. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar; 1997.
11.
WeinsteinMCStasonWB.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716–21.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Full list of technical support document. NICE DSU – completed or in progress. Available from: 19heffield.ac.uk [Accessed 5 April, 2022].
National Health Service (NHS), England. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Constitution and Functions) and the Health and Social Care Information Centre (Functions) Regulations2013. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/259/contents/made [Accessed 16 July, 2023].
16.
ZentnerAValasco-GarridoMBusseR.Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2005;1:Doc09.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Technology appraisal guidance [TA465]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta465 [Accessed 10 April, 2022].
DakinHDevlinNFengYRiceNO’NeillPParkinD.The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24:1256–71.
73.
ClaxtonKMartinSSoaresM, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1–503, v–vi.
DahanM. Révision des critères d’évaluation des produits de santé en vue de leur prise en charge par l’assurance maladie Analyse de l’Index thérapeutique relatif (ITR) proposé par la HAS Mission d’appui à la Direction de la sécurité sociale. IGAS RAPPORT N°2013-099R. Available from: https://www.igas.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2013-099R2_Rapport_ITR.pdf
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
