Regulating the pharmaceutical industry

doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7126.226

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

General public does not support value system inherent in cost effectiveness analyses

Jim Furniss, Managing consultanta,
Joe Zammit-Lucia, Directora,
Neil Johnson

^aHealth Economics Research Group, Cambridge Pharma Consultancy, European Office, Cambridge CB5 8AB
^bAssociation of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, London SW1A 2DY
^cOffice of Health Economics, London SW1A 2DY
^dNational Economic Research Associates, London W1N 9AF
^eAustralian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association, 77 Berry Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia
^fGlaxoWellcome, London W1X 6BQ
^gYork Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York YO1 5DD
^hDepartment of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation, University of York

Editor-Some of the recommendations in Maynard and Bloor's editorial on regulating the pharmaceutical industry are reminiscent of the days when the government was generally believed to be the best arbiter of how industry should invest its resources.1

The authors’ faith in the use of cost effectiveness analysis as a rationing mechanism is perhaps not surprising in view of their professional background. But to our knowledge there is no evidence-for example, from the Australian authorities-that the use of such analysis as a rationing mechanism improves public health. Indeed, some people have argued that it does exactly the opposite. It limits access to new interventions and protects established therapeutic regimens, which are never subjected to the same level of rigorous analysis.

Moreover, what research there has been suggests that the general public does not support the utilitarian value system inherent in cost effectiveness analyses.2 A rationing system that allocates resources on the basis of probable outcome rather than need does not seem to sit comfortably with current social values. Furthermore, cost effectiveness varies on a patient by patient basis. A system that blocks access to new treatments for the whole population is not reasonable when there are some patients for whom such an intervention is indeed very cost effective.

In a system constrained by costs, economic efficiency should naturally inform decisions on allocation of resources, but not as a blunt instrument of regulation for limiting access across the whole population. Rather, this is part of the general market in information that will allow healthcare professionals to make sensible decisions on how they treat individual patients.

The authors’ final suggestion is that there should be government direction of industry's expenditure on research. Financial penalties would siphon funds which could be directed at universities and the Medical Research Council. Again, where is …