Wouldn't It Be NICE? Could Europe Accept the Consequences of the US Adopting the UK's CEA Framework for Capping Launch Prices?

ISSUE: This panel will explore the potential consequences for Europeans were the US to adopt NICE’s CEA framework for reducing its willingness to pay for novel medicines and whether they might prefer NICE modify those methods before the US imports them.

OVERVIEW: Policymakers in the US are increasingly willing to rely on CEA to determine the value of new medicines and make reimbursement decisions. They are eager to understand why European countries enjoy a better “deal” on drug prices. There is a parallel debate about whether the CEA framework in the UK is too narrow, excluding many elements some argue should be included in a fuller, generalized CEA calculation. European payers are more willing than their US counterparts to restrict access to treatments based solely on cost, but Europeans may not truly appreciate the consequences of their lower willingness to pay. That’s because, today, the US market pays more for new medicines, supporting positive expected returns on R&D investment, so Europeans still can count on access to new medicines eventually (e.g., at worst, after they go generic), regardless of how they value them. But industry warns that they can’t justify investing in R&D if they have to assume that products that emerge from their R&D portfolios would be capped by the US at prices set by NICE’s math. Discussion will include: A) whether worthwhile innovation would be impacted by adoption of NICE’s CEA by the US; B) if so, would the UK and rest of Europe accept those consequences or prefer to see NICE’s math revised; C) if revised, how.