Back

The costs and benefits of an early access scheme for oncology medicines in Ireland

Morris, K.; Pennington, M.; Whitelegg, C.; Parkes, L.; Mahon, R.

2025-10-31 health economics
10.1101/2025.10.30.25339127 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAccess to new oncology medicines is subject to delays in many countries due to lengthy appraisal processes. This study examines the cost to the Irish healthcare system of implementing a cost- sharing agreement to expedite access to oncology medicines. MethodsThe hypothetical cost of implementing an early access scheme in Ireland was estimated for oncology medicines commencing appraisal in 2022. The scheme would have required the manufacturer to cover the cost for the first 180-day period and provide a further rebate if costs per patient over the whole duration of access exceeded those that would have arisen from the finally agreed price. Costs of the new medicine and savings arising from any therapies displaced were estimated on a daily basis using data published in the technical summaries of the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, Ireland (NCPE) assessment for each medicine. ResultsThe scheme would have reduced the time patients waited to access oncology medicines by more than two years on average. Assuming new medicines attract a discount of 30% at reimbursement and that medicines with an existing agreement are subject to a 30% discount, and that a further discount of 10% would be negotiated at reimbursement for the new indication, the costs to the government over the duration of the scheme would have been {euro}61.9m. Earlier access would have generated an additional 1,621 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) over the lifetime of patients accessing the scheme, after discounting. Costs were sensitive to assumptions on discounts negotiated at reimbursement. Costs fell substantially if patients with private insurance were assumed to access care through that insurance. ConclusionProtracted assessment times lead to substantial health losses to patients with cancer in Ireland. A cost-sharing scheme would accelerate access to new treatments by more than two years and at costs which are unlikely to exceed {euro}62m.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
17.2%
2
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
3
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.9%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.7%
5
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
8
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
9
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
11
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
12
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
13
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
17
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
18
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
20
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
25
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%