, Volume 34, Issue 7, pp 629–633 | Cite as

Cancer Drugs Fund 2.0: A Missed Opportunity?

  • Christopher McCabeEmail author
  • Ash Paul
  • Greg Fell
  • Mike Paulden


The UK National Health service (NHS), like most other developed health care systems, has struggled with how to address the financial challenge created by the steady stream of increasingly expensive cancer treatments receiving regulatory approval. In the first decade of this century, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal process was used to identify those that were likely to represent good value at the manufacturer’s asking price, to negotiate price discounts where possible, and to explain withholding of funding when negotiations failed. During the 2010 election campaign, the future Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised to create a Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) to pay for those drugs for which NICE gave a negative recommendation. Once in power, his government described the CDF as an interim arrangement until value-based pricing (VBP) was introduced, towards the end of their first parliament. Whilst initially underspent, in the last...


National Health Service Cancer Drug Consultation Document Technology Appraisal Appraisal Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work has no direct funding. Christopher McCabe is funded from the Capital Health Research Chair Endowment at the University of Alberta; Mike Paulden is funded by the Genome Canada and CIHR through the PACEOMICS research programme. (


  1. 1.
    National Audit Office. Investigation into the Cancer Drugs Fund. 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dillon, A. NICE calls for a new approach to managing the entry of drugs into the NHS. Press Release.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NHS England, N. Consultation on proposals for a new cancer drugs fund (CDF) operating model from April 2016. 2015.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jack A. Which way now for the Cancer Drugs Fund? BMJ. 2014;349:g5524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Your guide to PHARMAC: setting and managing the combined pharmaceutical budget (CPB). [Fact Sheet 8] p. 1–2. Accessed 18 March 2016.
  6. 6.
    Cookson R. Can the NICE ‘End-of-Life Premium’ be given a coherent ethical justification? J Health Politics Policy Law. 2013;38:1129–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paulden M, O’Mahony JF, Culyer AJ, McCabe C. Some inconsistencies in NICE’s consideration of social values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1043–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Unknown. New 50 million pound cancer fund already intellectually bankrupt. Lancet (London, England) 2010;376:389.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:40–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prassad, V. Preventing cancer is biologically challenging: Rebuttal to Heidi Williams and colleagues: why use of surrogates and patent incentives won’t improve early cancer or chemoprevention drug development. Vinnay Prassad Blog. 2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fojo T, Mailankody S, Lo A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics—the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;1225–1236. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1570.
  12. 12.
    McClellan M, Sigal E. New FDA breakthrough-drug category—implications for patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:87–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rawlins M, Dillon A. NICE discrimination. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:683–684. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.013813.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    NICE. Consultation paper: value based assessment of health technologies. 2016.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claxton K. et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 2015;19:1–503, v–vi.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. NICE London 2013. Accessed 18 March 2016.
  17. 17.
    Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ. Valuing health at the end of life: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Social Sci Med. 2015;1982(124):48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinto-Prades J-LL, Sánchez-Martínez F-II, Corbacho B, Baker R. Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Social Sci Med. 2014;1982(113):5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24:207–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher McCabe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ash Paul
    • 2
  • Greg Fell
    • 3
  • Mike Paulden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.London Borough of WandsworthLondonUK
  3. 3.Sheffield City CouncilSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations