For new 'cutting edge' anti-cancer drugs that are approved on a rolling basis by the
@EMA_News, some drugs offer greater clinically meaningful benefit than others.
If we agree that providing public access to every EMA-approved cancer drug is not sensible (e.g. a drug that improves length of life by 6 weeks on average, at an extraordinary cost in terms of side effects and quality of life), the question becomes "which of the EMA-approved cancer therapies are worth reimbursing?".
Worth, in my opinion, in the first case should be measured by anti-cancer effectiveness.
Second, by unmet need. Are there no other available treatments for this cancer at this stage?
If public and private (healthcare insurance) sectors join forces to develop a unified core system of reimbursement that is centred on the effectiveness of the new therapy - with all emerging EMA-approved drugs considered on a rolling basis - I think most people would not be concerned if insurance companies also made less effective (but EMA-approved) therapies available, as a benefit to their customers.
Thank you to
@C103Cork and
@pmessy for the discussion today. It is a conversation certainly worth having in public, as opposed to behind closed doors.
open.spotify.com/episode/2zR…