Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) play a pivotal role in determining the cost-effectiveness of treatments, particularly within the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales. While theoretically equal, the practical application of QALYs has raised concerns, especially regarding rare diseases and unique patient populations. This article explores the impact of time horizons on QALY calculations and implicitly funding decisions for healthcare treatments.
QALYs blend clinical benefit and treatment duration, with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) using them to assess cost-effectiveness. Treatments exceeding GBP 30,000 per QALY gained face funding challenges. However, the application of QALYs across diverse patient groups has sparked debates on fairness and transparency in decision-making processes.
Examining evaluations of afamelanotide for erythropoietic protoporphyria and givosiran for acute hepatic porphyria reveals discrepancies in time horizons. The length of time considered for treatment impacts QALY gains and subsequent funding recommendations, highlighting the need for consistency and realism in assessments.
A comprehensive review of time horizons in Highly Specialised Technologies (HST) evaluations uncovers a trend towards extended durations, sometimes surpassing expected treatment periods or life expectancies. Extended time horizons can alter perceived treatment benefits and impact funding decisions, potentially influencing resource allocation within the healthcare system.
The study underscores the importance of aligning time horizons with clinical realities to ensure equitable funding decisions. Transparent reporting and methodological consistency in QALY calculations are crucial for promoting fairness and trust in healthcare funding processes. Addressing discrepancies and rationalising parameters like time horizons can enhance the integrity of decision-making frameworks.
The analysis calls for a re-evaluation of time horizons in QALY calculations to uphold fairness and accuracy in healthcare funding assessments. By fostering transparency, consistency, and evidence-based decision-making, organisations like NICE can better serve diverse patient populations and uphold the principles of equitable healthcare access.
🚀 Understand the market dynamics of Novo Nordisk’s GLP-1 Market Share Decline.
A case of demand underestimation, supply chain strain, and competitor agility. Using systems thinking, we unpack the dynamic forces behind Eli Lilly’s surge—and what strategic levers pharma leaders must pull to stay ahead.
#SyenzaNews #PharmaStrategy #MarketDynamics #NovoNordisk #EliLilly #GLP1
💡 Can tolebrutinib reshape the treatment landscape for progressive multiple sclerosis?
A recent report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reveals promising insights on tolebrutinib, demonstrating a 31% reduction in disability progression for patients with non-relapsing secondary progressive MS. Yet, mixed outcomes and potential safety concerns raise critical questions about its long-term efficacy and market access.
Explore the nuances of this groundbreaking therapy and its implications for healthcare economics.
#SyenzaNews #HealthEconomics #MarketAccess
🌟 What does the EMA’s orphan drug designation for allopurinol mean for those impacted by Marfan syndrome?
This groundbreaking move highlights a significant step forward in tackling rare diseases, offering hope to patients with limited treatment options. Allopurinol, traditionally used for gout, shows promise in addressing life-threatening aortic complications associated with Marfan syndrome, thanks to its antioxidant properties.
Dive into the implications of this development for healthcare innovation, patient access, and the future of rare disease treatment!
#SyenzaNews #HealthEconomics #Innovation #MarketAccess
SPEAK WITH US
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
1950 W. Corporate Way, Suite 95478
Anaheim, CA 92801, USA
WRITE US
JOIN NEWSLETTER
