IMF: The Innovative Medicines Fund or the Interim Medicines Fund?
Author(s)
Mark Orchard, BSc, Evie Cooke, MPhil.
Cogentia Healthcare Consulting, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Cogentia Healthcare Consulting, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: NICE launched the Innovative Medicines Fund (IMF) in June 2022, ringfencing £340m with the aim of fast-tracking non-oncology drugs addressing a high unmet need. However, three years since launch, its use has been limited, with only three technologies (all ATMPs) recommended via IMF to date. This study aimed to identify emerging trends in IMF use and managed access agreements (MAAs) in non-oncology indications in the UK, building on work presented 12 months ago.
METHODS: Non-oncology technology appraisals (TAs) published between October 2024 and June 2025 were analysed for any documentation referencing MAAs. TAs currently in development were also considered, provided committee papers were available at the time of analysis.
RESULTS: Between October 2024- June 2025, 14 TAs were identified where access via the IMF was considered. Of these, one technology (exagamglogene autotemcel for sickle cell disease) was recommended via the IMF. The remaining 13 of 14 had several reasons for not proceeding with IMF including: the company not engaging (7 of 14), no plausible potential to be cost-effective (1 of 14), data collection issues (1 of 14), and recommendation via routine commissioning meaning no need for IMF (4 of 14). Nearly all of the companies not engaging, (6 of 7) used the IMF for interim funding to bridge the 90 day gap after positive recommendation before proceeding to funding through routine commissioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Three years since launch, the IMF has only been utilised three times as a fund to support managed access, with many more examples of its use for interim funding only. One possible explanation for this is that manufacturers are concerned about the IMF’s requirement to provide drug free of charge should a price agreement not be reached following conclusion of the managed access period. This may explain why use is thus far limited to single-use technologies.
METHODS: Non-oncology technology appraisals (TAs) published between October 2024 and June 2025 were analysed for any documentation referencing MAAs. TAs currently in development were also considered, provided committee papers were available at the time of analysis.
RESULTS: Between October 2024- June 2025, 14 TAs were identified where access via the IMF was considered. Of these, one technology (exagamglogene autotemcel for sickle cell disease) was recommended via the IMF. The remaining 13 of 14 had several reasons for not proceeding with IMF including: the company not engaging (7 of 14), no plausible potential to be cost-effective (1 of 14), data collection issues (1 of 14), and recommendation via routine commissioning meaning no need for IMF (4 of 14). Nearly all of the companies not engaging, (6 of 7) used the IMF for interim funding to bridge the 90 day gap after positive recommendation before proceeding to funding through routine commissioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Three years since launch, the IMF has only been utilised three times as a fund to support managed access, with many more examples of its use for interim funding only. One possible explanation for this is that manufacturers are concerned about the IMF’s requirement to provide drug free of charge should a price agreement not be reached following conclusion of the managed access period. This may explain why use is thus far limited to single-use technologies.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA192
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas