MS drugs scheme 'a costly failure' for the NHS

June 4, 2010, British Medical Journal

The multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme is "a costly failure" and should not be continued, according to researchers in the British Medical Journal today.

They argue that the biggest losers are the other NHS patients who would otherwise have benefited from the money spent on the scheme, estimated to be around £50m per year since it was set up in 2002.

They also point out that, if an assessment had been completed after the first two years, the NHS could have already saved around £250m.

The risk sharing scheme was set up by the Department of Health to make sure disease-modifying drugs were available on the NHS after the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) ruled that they were not cost effective.

Under the terms of the scheme, the government agreed to provide these drugs on the NHS while research was carried out to assess their long term . The NHS would then gradually stop paying for the drugs if patients did not appear to be benefiting.

In 2009, seven years after the scheme was set up, the first analysis of the data showed that patient outcomes were much worse than predicted, but the scheme's scientific advisory group judged that it was premature to reduce prices without further analysis.

Why did this happen and what can we do to prevent it recurring?

Christopher McCabe, a health economist at the University of Leeds, and colleagues argue that none of the reasons for delaying the price review withstand critical assessment. They raise concerns about the independence of the group, which includes representatives from the , patient groups, clinicians and the Department of Health. The delay in the publication of the first results is a further cause for concern, they add.

James Raftery, Professor of health technology assessment at Southampton University, supports these concerns and raises further questions about the independence of the advisory group, and the overall governance of the scheme.

The scheme was a success for the drug companies, who sold at close to full price to the NHS, says Raftery. For the NHS, however, it can be judged only "a costly failure," he writes. "Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes in future patient access schemes must be independent of the companies involved. Transparency is essential, involving annual reports, access to data, and rights to publish. Any of these might have helped avoid the current fiasco, he concludes."

McCabe and colleagues add: "When the key uncertainty in the evidence base for a new product relates to its effectiveness, a randomised controlled trial is likely to be the quickest, most efficient, and most ethical strategy."

But in an accompanying commentary, Alastair Compston, Professor of Neurology at the University of Cambridge argues that the scheme has benefited patients, though he acknowledges that its governance was inadequate and that its terms of reference were not delivered. He also warns that attempts to force the drug companies to repay costs would be likely to trigger complex legal arguments.

And in a second commentary, George Ebers, Professor of Clinical Neurology at the University of Oxford, believes that the outcome measures used in the scheme were flawed. He also says that the scheme's findings raise questions about industrial-academic relationships and their governance. "The scheme may have been well intentioned, but perhaps the public interest would be served by an independent inquiry," he writes.

And in an editorial, Neil Scolding, Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Bristol and Frenchay Hospital, describes the scheme as a clever achievement, which despite being flawed, has had unintended beneficial consequences.

Scolding argues that the scheme has spawned an extremely successful infrastructure of specialist care in the UK and that the drugs prescribed will have prevented thousands of relapses. He also says that "it leaves a platform for introducing new treatments and executing clinical research that is second to none in the world."

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Best of Last Year—The top Medical Xpress articles of 2017

December 20, 2017
It was a good year for medical research as a team at the German center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Magdeburg, found that dancing can reverse the signs of aging in the brain. Any exercise helps, the team found, but dancing ...

Pickled in 'cognac', Chopin's heart gives up its secrets

November 26, 2017
The heart of Frederic Chopin, among the world's most cherished musical virtuosos, may finally have given up the cause of his untimely death.

Sugar industry withheld evidence of sucrose's health effects nearly 50 years ago

November 21, 2017
A U.S. sugar industry trade group appears to have pulled the plug on a study that was producing animal evidence linking sucrose to disease nearly 50 years ago, researchers argue in a paper publishing on November 21 in the ...

Female researchers pay more attention to sex and gender in medicine

November 7, 2017
When women participate in a medical research paper, that research is more likely to take into account the differences between the way men and women react to diseases and treatments, according to a new study by Stanford researchers.

Drug therapy from lethal bacteria could reduce kidney transplant rejection

August 3, 2017
An experimental treatment derived from a potentially deadly microorganism may provide lifesaving help for kidney transplant patients, according to an international study led by investigators at Cedars-Sinai.

Exploring the potential of human echolocation

June 25, 2017
People who are visually impaired will often use a cane to feel out their surroundings. With training and practice, people can learn to use the pitch, loudness and timbre of echoes from the cane or other sounds to navigate ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2010
Based on ca. 15 yrs of evidence, low dose naltrexone, LDN, should be tried before switching these MS patients to expensive and mostly ineffective patent drugs.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.