Kennedy sets out views on NICE’s future
pharmafile | May 14, 2009 | News story | Research and Development | NICE
Two stakeholder workshops which could shape NICE's future direction are to be held next week.
Professor Sir Ian Kennedy has been asked to conduct a thorough review of how NICE works, and has given a preview of the questions to be debated in the workshops.
Kennedy launched his review earlier this year by asking for stakeholders, including the pharma industry, to submit their views on NICE and how it can improve.
The ABPI's submission indicated that the pharma industry was being held back by NICE's failure to approve new products.
Meanwhile, some have concluded that more taxpayer money should be spent on funding clinical trials which the industry does not conduct.
Nearly 40 written statements have been received by Sir Ian, most of which have come from the pharma sector.
Others were received from patient groups, companies in the devices sector and academics.
All respondents have been invited to the workshops next week at the Wellcome Trust's London HQ to consider questions arising from their evidence.
Kennedy is then expected to present his recommendations to the NICE board in June, after which the Institute will put the findings out to consultation.
"The workshops are critical in this," Sir Ian said, adding that the submissions have pointed in many useful directions.
"There are submissions, particularly from patient groups, about the range of products that NICE submits to technology appraisals."
"There was specific reference to NICE as though it were a barrier to the introduction of certain drugs to the health service," Sir Ian said.
The workshop attendees will be asked to consider three questions.
The first is whether NICE takes enough account of the benefits that flow from medicines, drugs and devices.
Such issues as whether products would allow patients to return to work, or remove the requirement for a carer, are important here.
"These are benefits to society as a whole as well as to the individual," said Sir Ian.
"The argument is that NICE should factor in such benefits. NICE's response is that to some extent that is already the case."
The second issue relates to the idea of "innovation".
"Some sections of the pharma industry say that NICE 'stifles' innovation," explained Sir Ian. "This then becomes a question of what 'innovation' might mean."
Key issues include how much the taxpayer should contribute to fund clinical trials for drugs which may provide great benefit to the NHS further down the line.
"You may have to think of creative ways of sponsoring more trials," suggested Sir Ian. "Who bears the financial risk of the process?"
And the third discussion point next week will revolve around how technology appraisals should be changed – if change is required.
"The NICE system has stood the test of ten years and is highly regarded internationally," said Sir Ian. "It's a question of factoring in elements to make it transparent, objective and fair."
NICE commissioned Sir Ian in January to carry out the study, some questions from which will also be put before NICE's Citizens' Council.
Related Content
Combination treatments: Takeda’s Implementation Framework and the broader landscape
Pharmafile talks to Emma Roffe, Oncology Country Head (UK & Ireland) about the combination treatment …
NICE recommends Pfizer’s new once-weekly treatment for haemophilia B on NHS
Walton Oaks, 21st May 2025 – Pfizer Ltd announced today that the National Institute for Health and Care …
Dual immunotherapy for bowel cancer now available under NHS
Dual immunotherapy, a combination of Opdivo (nivolumab) and Yervoy (ipilimumab), has been granted extension in …
