Health outcomes versus income: the balance of value and cost in cancer care

As access to and affordability of innovative cancer treatments climbs the political ladder and increasingly becomes one of the most difficult health economic issues on the global agenda, analyst Global Insight has reviewed recent cost-effectiveness appraisals and what they mean for developing pricing strategies. Its key findings are:

- while clinical health outcomes are showing major advances in the field of oncology, the global picture of market access has made for a bleak assessment for pharmaceutical companies;

- reading like a "Who's Who" list of the best drugs to come out of the oncology pipeline over the last few years, Avastin (bevacizumab) has struggled to secure reimbursement in France; Erbitux (cetuximab) received critical special authority barriers in Germany; four leading cancer drugs - Sutent (sunitinib), Nexavar (sorafenib), Tarceva (erlotinib) and Sprycel (dasatinib) - are confined to risk-sharing agreements in Italy; and the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) did not recommend use of Sutent, Nexavar, Avastin or Torsel in kidney cancer. Even in the USA, tier-four restrictions are strangling widespread uptake of new, innovative, and expensive cancer treatments. Elsewhere, the spread of compulsory licensing to oncology undermines the very patent foundation upon which the pharmaceutical model is based and relies on for future investment in new medical treatments;