• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
New Health Report 2012 - Media Briefing Deck

New Health Report 2012 - Media Briefing Deck






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Things to highlight: This year’s report is a follow-up to last year’s report on the topic of value. It seemed logical and important that any conversation about value in healthcare be followed up with one on the concept of risk.Feel free to mention something current as an example of the attention being paid to risk/benefit.
  • We really wanted to explore and illustrate that notion that there is no holistic, universal approach to risk/benefit.Further, we felt that much could be learned by comparing sentiment of stakeholders from different healthcare systems.Finally, the UK’s experience with NICE provides an opportunity to emulate efforts that worked and jettison those that didn’t as other countries move toward value-based healthcare.
  • Emphasize the difference in perception.Strongly emphasize that the industry really needs better, more robust data as well as more sensitive measures to assess risk and benefit.Also, there are things pharma can do now (risk-sharing agreements), in the mid term (collaboration with payers throughout development) and in the long-term (pre-competitive alliances) to better mitigate risk.
  • There’s a slight trend toward being more optimistic among biopharma and payers, but patients seem less optimistic than they were a year ago. In addition, 60 percent of the U.K. patients are pessimistic about tomorrow’s quality of healthcare. This may be an indictment as to the overall direction of the NHS.
  • Emphasize that biopharma *STILL* sees the FDA as the bottleneck.But note that nearly a third cite more requests for data and payer reluctance as the BIGGEST challenge.(Remember, this was a pick-one only question.)
  • This is tough slide to walk through, but we gave patients twelve scenarios (each patient received four, randomly) to assess their interest in a drug that came with a clear benefit (for cancer, 10 years of extended life), (for chronic pain, making pain manageable or eliminating it altogether); as well as the probability of a side effect. Two probabilities of nausea and two probabilities of heart attack.While almost all data showed a trend indicating that patients were willing to accept more risk for more benefit, patients in the UK were far more likely to accept the risks. The takeaway: patients are simply not able to determine risk and benefit on the basis of probability. Biopharma must find ways to better communicate with them.
  • This is a hard slide to read at this size, but the thing to point out is that the darker portions of each line indicate the percentage of respondents who rated each tool as “excellent.” Obviously, none of these appear to be that great.We also asked what tools are you currently using, and for the most part, the tools that are being used to assess risk are not that highly rated either. Again, emphasize the need for better data and more sensitive measures.
  • The bullets above say most of it. But in essence, even after 10+ years of use in the UK, HTA is not perceived as adding much value. Which should be a warning sign for biopharma to get involved with the early discussions on how to better incorporate CER into this country. Focus on methodology, etc.
  • This is great data.All groups are supportive of risk-sharing agreements between biopharma and payers.Pre-competitive alliances are seen as having a positive effect on both speed and qualityPerception among all groups that risk-sharing agreements will increase patient access to medications.Nearly three quarters of biopharma execs and payers from both countries feel that pre-competitive alliances will produce more innovative and effective therapies.Payers would like more involvement in drug development than at the present; particularly in the later phases.