The
recent decision to remove some drugs from the Cancer Drugs Fund approved list
generated stark headlines, combative comments and an apparent wide chasm of
views.
But whatever the reaction it is clear that
when it comes to long term funding of cancer drugs both the Government and the drugs companies have failed to seize
the opportunity and both must share the blame for failing to fix this problem.
It
would be helpful to begin with a reminder of why the Cancer Drugs Fund was set
up in 2010. Prior to the Fund existing
we saw repeated cases of cancer patients told they could not get new cancer
drugs on the NHS because NICE had said, based on their existing model, that
they didn’t meet the criteria for cost-effectiveness. To some this seemed a hard but reasonable
approach, given that the NHS has limited funds and these drugs would “only”
given patients a few more months of life at best. Cancer doctors, patients and health charities
knew that the truth was more complex.
These new drugs would often lead to not weeks or months but in many case
years of extra life and the quality of this life would be infinitely better and
pain-free than the alternative life without them. That is why we fought so hard to make the
case for a better approach that would give cancer patients access to new drugs
that provided real advances in their treatment and prognosis.
The
Cancer Drugs Fund was only supposed to be a temporary measure to provide cancer
patients and their doctors with certainty that they would get new drugs of
proven effectiveness. Everyone
recognised that a long term solution was needed and we all awaited the
publication of new proposals for this, called “value based pricing”. Sadly this has never appeared and, in the
meantime, the demands on the Fund grew because NICE continued to reject drugs.
Yet there has been no review of why NICE continues to reject these drugs for
funding on the NHS, despite the evidence that NICE’s systems for deciding this
are increasingly irrelevant to the new, targeted treatments that are becoming
available.
The
recent argument in favour of dropping some drugs from the Cancer Drugs Fund was
that these drugs are not clinically effective, that “None of the drugs showed evidence of prolonging life by more
than three months, and many had nasty side effects with a serious impact on
quality of life.” The truth is that the
evidence required to assess these drugs is limited to clinical trial data made available
by the individual pharmaceutical companies.
This data is, by its very nature, subject to severe limitations on its
validity for the wider patient population. In fact, thanks to the last four years of the cancer Drugs Fund we have
a wealth of available data about the impact of these drugs on patients outside
of a clinical trial and we believe this evidence will show the drugs have a
massive effect on extending and improving the quality of life. But, despite repeatedly being asked to by
many cancer charities, NHS England has refused to make this data available and,
importantly, use it in its assessment of the effectiveness of these drugs. The reality outside of a restricted, outdated
process is that patients do live a lot longer than the trials indicate.
Take Simon, diagnosed with advanced bowel
cancer over four years ago. Thanks to the Cancer Drugs Fund he was given a drug
that according to NHS officials would not prolong his life by more than a few
months. Simon is still here, very
healthy and with a normal quality of life.
The fact is that his treatment worked, and allowed him to go on and
receive further treatments that also worked.
If patients like Simon are diagnosed after 12th
March this year they will be refused funding for the same treatment with
devastating consequences. That is why Simon is campaigning hard for a change of heart and he wants the Prime Minister to listen to patients and keep his personal promise on cancer drugs.
Simon Hawkins has a clear message for the PM |
But,
we all know that the Cancer Drugs
Fund should be no more than a temporary measure. Few of us want to spend time defending a
short term fix. But, if the Fund is a
sticking plaster then it is wrong to rip that plaster off and, by removing key
drugs from its list, leave a gaping wound without better alternative in
place. We should not act in haste
without knowing we have fixed the problem for the long term. Without this solution then we risk returning
to the repeated problems that brought about the need for the Fund in the first
place.
Patients want to know
that the system is working for them not against them. Patients cannot afford
for the system to give up on them. The NHS needs to urgently get round the
table with the drugs companies to see what can be done to protect access to
these treatments. We
should not give up on cancer patients. Patients should not pay the price for a failure of imagination and
will on the part of others. We should put in place a long-term solution
that has the confidence all cancer patients.