Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

NHS

Cancer Drugs Fund needs overhaul, NAO investigation finds

The National Audit Office’s report comes ahead of a consultation on proposals to reform the Cancer Drugs Fund.

The Cancer Drugs Fund is unsustainable in its current form because of overspending and a lack of evidence on the results it yields, reports the NAO. Meg Hillier MP (pictured), chair of the committee of public accounts, the fund cannot continue in the same

Source: Jonathan Goldberg/REX Shutterstock

Meg Hillier MP, chair of the committee of public accounts, says at a time when the NHS is facing increased pressures on funding, the fund cannot continue in the same vein

The Cancer Drugs Fund is unsustainable in its current form because of overspending and a lack of evidence on the results it yields, according to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO).

Established in 2010 to improve access to cancer therapies not routinely available on the NHS, the scheme has exceeded its budget by 50% and no data exist to show whether it is having any effect on the health of patients, the NAO investigation found.

The report comes ahead of a consultation on proposals from NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on reform of the scheme.

Since its inception, more than 74,000 patients have been approved to receive drugs through the fund, the NAO found.

While spending was initially kept under the allocated budget, since 2013 NHS England has overspent by 35%, its cost rising by £241m — an increase of 138%, the report said.

In 2014–2015, the total cost of the fund was £416m and, for the first time, NHS England had been forced to cut costs by removing some previously approved drugs from the list.

It has put forward a plan for a “managed access fund” to pay for new drugs for a set period before NICE determines whether they should be available on the NHS.

The NAO figures show that half of the patients receiving drugs through the fund to date had been given treatments already looked at by NICE but rejected for not meeting clinical or cost-effectiveness criteria.

Meg Hillier MP, chair of the committee of public accounts, says at a time when the NHS is facing increased pressures on funding, the fund cannot continue in the same vein.

“If patients are going to get access to the drugs they need, there has to be much better control of costs and proper assessment of whether these drugs are making a difference to the health of patients,” she says.

An NHS England spokesperson says a consultation on their plans would begin soon.

The new system will be designed to provide the NHS with a more systematic approach to getting the best price for cancer drugs, meaning more treatments can be made available, and give a greater focus on evaluation, leading to the best drugs progressing swiftly to routine commissioning,” the spokesperson adds.

Others were quick to agree it was time to overhaul the current system.

Emma Greenwood, Cancer Research UK’s head of policy, says: “We now need to see wider reform of cancer drug funding — including reform of NICE — to ensure that the system can meet each individual patients’ needs.”

Richard Torbett, executive director, commercial, at the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, points out that the report makes clear that the use of new cancer drugs in the UK still remains below the average in other comparable countries.

“We want to see many more patients benefitting from new and innovative medicines, including cancer medicines,” he says. “What is needed is a wholesale reform of NICE, which, along with NHS England, needs to develop a longer-term sustainable solution to the evaluation and commissioning of cancer medicines.”

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2015.20069377

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

  • Drugs of Abuse

    Drugs of Abuse

    A concise, easy-to-read guide for healthcare professionals who encounter drug abuse.

    £38.00Buy now
  • Pharmaceutical Toxicology

    Pharmaceutical Toxicology

    Explains the methodology and requirements of pre-clinical safety assessments of new medicines. Includes registration requirements and pharmacovigilance.

    £40.00Buy now
  • Drugs and the Liver

    Drugs and the Liver

    Drugs and the Liver assists practitioners in making pragmatic choices for their patients. It enables you to assess liver function and covers the principles of drug use in liver disease.

    £38.00Buy now
  • Clarke's Analysis of Drugs and Poisons

    Clarke's Analysis of Drugs and Poisons

    Clarke's Analysis of Drugs and Poisons is the definitive reference source of analytical data for drugs and poisons.

    £535.00Buy now
  • Injectable Drugs Guide

    Injectable Drugs Guide

    A user friendly, single point of reference for healthcare professionals in the safe and effective administration of injectable medicines.

    £54.00Buy now

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Supplementary images

  • The Cancer Drugs Fund is unsustainable in its current form because of overspending and a lack of evidence on the results it yields, reports the NAO. Meg Hillier MP (pictured), chair of the committee of public accounts, the fund cannot continue in the same

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.