Viewpoint |

Careful Use of Science to Advance the Debate on the UK Cancer Drugs Fund

Darius N. Lakdawalla, PhD1; Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD2,3,4; Jason N. Doctor, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
2Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
3Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
4National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts
JAMA. 2014;311(1):25-26. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.282839.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Debate continues over the recent renewal of the UK Cancer Drugs Fund. The fund sets aside money for the National Health Service (NHS) to pay for expensive oncology medications that have not been recommended for coverage. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) assesses the cost-effectiveness of new therapies and recommends how the NHS should allocate its fixed budget. Since 2010, a total of £1 billion (≈$1.62 billion) has been invested in the fund, which was designed to assuage public concerns over NICE recommendations that blocked or delayed access to some new cancer drugs. The latest investment of £400 million (≈$648 million) means that current and new patients being treated with expensive oncology therapies covered by the fund can draw from it until March 2016. Although drug makers and cancer patient advocacy groups see this as a victory, some health policy researchers and analysts believe that the special cancer fund lacks coherence and fails to support evidence-based decision making.1 The debate over the Cancer Drugs Fund provides an opportunity to reconsider competing issues surrounding the allocation of health care dollars at the end of life.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles