The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports and issues briefs on topics important to population health.
December 2009 (Volume 87)
December 2009 | Ruth R. Faden, Kalipso Chalkidou, John Appleby, Hugh R. Waters, Jonathon P. Leider
Context: This article compares the United Kingdom’s and the United States’ experiences with expensive cancer drugs to illustrate the challenges posed by new, extremely costly, medical technologies.
Methods: This article describes British and American coverage, access, and cost-sharing policies with regard to expensive cancer drugs and then compares the costs of eleven such drugs to British patients, American Medicare beneficiaries, and American patients purchasing the drugs in the retail market. Three questions posed by these comparisons are then examined: First, which system is fairer ? In which system are cancer patients better off ? Assuming that no system can sustainably provide to everyone at least some expensive cancer drugs for some clinical indications, what challenges does each system face in making these difficult determinations?
Findings: In both the British and American health care systems, not all patients who might benefit from or desire access to expensive cancer drugs have access to them. The popular characterization of the United States, where all cancer drugs are available for all to access as and when needed, and that of the British NHS, where top-down population rationing poses insurmountable obstacles to British patients’ access, are far from the reality in both countries.
Conclusions: Key elements of the British system are fairer than the American system, and the British system is better structured to deal with difficult decisions about expensive end-of-life cancer drugs. Both systems face common ethical, financial, organizational, and priority-setting challenges in making these decisions.
Author(s): Ruth R. Faden; Kalipso Chalkidou; John Appleby; Hugh R. Waters; Jonathon P. Leider
Keywords: fairness; access; cancer drugs; affordability; rationing; prioritization; priority setting
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 87, Issue 4 (pages 789–819)
Published in 2009
Consumer-Oriented Health Care Reform Strategies: A Review of the Evidence on Managed Competition and Consumer-Directed Health Insurance
Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method