The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was introduced in England in 2011. It was established in order to provide a means by which National Health Service (NHS) patients in England could get cancer drugs that are not routinely available on the NHS. Its establishment was confirmed by the UK government's coalition agreement in 2010, and by the White Paper, Equity and excellence – Liberating the NHS.
Contents
Objectives
The objectives of the CDF, as set out by the UK government, are that it should:
Operation
The patient's consultant must apply to the fund using an application form supplied by NHS England. Decision Summaries which are the formal decisions of the Chemotherapy Clinical Reference Group are published.
Avastin is the most frequently requested treatment. Kadcyla is the most expensive drug funded. Both are manufactured by Hoffmann-La Roche, which has been described as the largest beneficiary of the fund.
From July 2016 it will become a “managed access” fund, paying for new drugs for a set period before they are definitively approved or rejected by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. It will not accept any new drugs between April and July 2016. After that each drug will have evaluation criteria and a timescale for effectiveness to be assessed. If it is considered to be cost effective it will be available to any patient. If not it will not be available at all in the English NHS.
History
The funding system originally ran from April 2011 to March 2014, and was preceded by an Interim Cancer Drugs Fund from October 2010 to March 2011. Based on the size of their covered population, each Strategic Health Authority in England was allocated fixed funds from a total £200 million per annum that was made available.
The fund overspent by £30m in the year ending 2014. In August 2014 it was announced that the CDF would receive £80 million in additional funding for the following 2 years. But in November 2014 it was announced that 42 drugs currently provided would be reassessed due to inadequate cost-effectiveness. In Wales, the National Assembly debated the use of Cancer Treatment Fund and the Welsh Labour government was clear that it would not be replacing its existing evidence-based system with a cancer drugs fund. It relies on the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group which has appraised and recommended 19 new cancer medicines for use in NHS Wales covering 23 clinical indications. These are now routinely available to eligible patients in Wales but only 9 are available in England via the Cancer Drugs Fund.
In May 2015 it was reported that only 59 of the 84 treatments previously funded would be supported in future, and that three new drugs would be included in the scheme. After a manufacturer's appeal Regorafenib was restored to the list.
Criticism
Research indicates that society does not support the prioritisation of cancer drugs over other treatments. The Financial Times attacked the fund in December 2014 as "a populist gesture that gives the impression of benefiting patients, but in fact rewards poor quality drugs while benefiting a handful of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the taxpayer and the full range of NHS patients", complaining that it undermined the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. James Le Fanu writing in the Daily Telegraph said "This mechanism for diverting taxpayers’ money to enhance, to little or no purpose, the profits of Big Pharma might be more aptly named “the Drug Company Fund”." In February 2015 York University researchers reported that the fund represented particularly poor value, diverting money from other patient services and that for every healthy year gained by this fund, five QALYs could be lost across the NHS.
In December 2014 Andy Burnham announced that a Labour government would replace the fund with a Cancer Treatment Fund which would pay not only for innovative cancer drugs, but also for surgery and radiotherapy. It could mean increased access to advanced forms of radiotherapy such as intensity modulated radiotherapy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.
In July 2015 the independent cancer taskforce established by NHS England proposed reform of the fund, which the taskforce said was “no longer sustainable or desirable… in its current form”.
Professor Karl Claxton, a health economist at the University of York, says that the fund should be scrapped because the money would be better used on 21,000 patients with heart, lung and gastro-intestinal diseases who are denied cost effective evidence based treatment, arguing that the principal beneficiary of the fund is 'big pharma'.
In September 2015 the National Audit Office reported that no data had been collected on the 74,000 patients whose treatment had been funded, at a cost of nearly £1 billion, so it was impossible to discover whether the treatment had been effective.
The Public Accounts Committee published a report on the fund in February 2016 which concluded that there was no evidence the fund was benefiting patients, extending lives or a good use of taxpayers' money.