Abstract
© 2014 Future Medicine Ltd.Drugs for ultra-rare disorders (URDs) rank prominently among the most expensive medicines on a cost-per-patient basis. Many of them do not meet conventional standards for cost-effectiveness. In light of the high fixed cost of R&D, this challenge is inversely related to the prevalence of URDs. The present paper sets out to explain the rationale underlying a recent expert consensus on these issues, recommending a more rigorous assessment of the clinical effectiveness of URDs, applying established standards of evidence-based medicine. This may include conditional approval and reimbursement policies, which should be combined with a firm expectation of proof of a minimum significant clinical benefit within a reasonable time. In contrast, current health economic evaluation paradigms fail to adequately reflect normative and empirical concerns (i.e., morally defensible 'social preferences') regarding healthcare resource allocation. Hence there is a strong need for alternative economic evaluation models for URDs.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 399-422 |
Number of pages | 23 |
Journal | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
Volume | 3 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2014 |
Keywords
- consensus statement
- cost-effectiveness
- economic evaluation
- fairness
- health technology assessment
- medical ethics
- medical need
- orphan medicines
- quality-adjusted life year
- social preferences