1 / 18

SMC Evaluation Project The View From Industry

SMC Evaluation Project The View From Industry. Martin Coombes Government 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

debbie
Download Presentation

SMC Evaluation Project The View From Industry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SMC Evaluation ProjectThe View From Industry Martin Coombes Government Affairs Manager, AstraZeneca ABPI Representative SMC Evaluation Reference Group

  2. “The Pharmaceutical Industry is recognised as a key partner by SMC and have supported the development of a robust and transparent decision-making process.”

  3. Life Science Message Scottish Medicines Consortium Work

  4. SMC Evaluation Project Management Group: Paul Catchpole Reference Group: Martin Coombes, Jim Swift Andrew McGuigan ABPI Scotland: Andy Powrie-Smith SMC User Group Forum

  5. SMC Evaluation Project • Stakeholder engagement • Medicines utilisation • Not recommended • Accepted for use/restricted use • SMC advice on unique treatment • Evaluation of Budget Impact

  6. 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

  7. Medicines Utilisation

  8. Medicines Utilisation • Not recommended

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Medicines Utilisation • Accepted

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. R & D

More Related