NICE has backed moves by the Department of Health to make NHS organisations publish which of their technology appraisals are included in local formularies from April next year.

Research has found that certain PCTs are blacklisting expensive treatments recommended by NICE creating a postcode lottery for patients across England.

That led to NICE chair Sir Michael Rawlins calling for patients to sue trusts which do not provide access to treatments recommended by the regulator.

Sir David Nicholson, NHS Chief Executive, has since written to SHAs and PCTs saying that he “wants to see” which NICE technology appraisals are included on local formularies.

“Formularies have an important role in underpinning safe and effective use of medicines,” he said in his letter. “However, they should not duplicate NICE assessments or challenge an appraisal recommendation. Once in formularies, there should be no further barriers to the use or prescription of technologies or medicines.”

Professor Gillian Leng, Deputy Chief Executive of NICE, welcomed the instructions by Sir David and said NICE is now working on creating a best practice guide to developing local formularies.

“This will help ensure consistency in the way in which local formularies are produced, and ensure there is no local evaluation of drugs that have been positively appraised by NICE.

“NICE-approved drugs should not be excluded from local formularies on the grounds of cost. We want all patients to have access to medicines that we consider to be effective.”

The Health & Social Care Bill has finally completed its arduous passage through parliament. In normal circumstances, the landmark of Royal Assent would provide a key moment of clarity for the future of the healthcare in the UK. But this is the NHS – and nothing is ever that simple. Whichever way you look, the health service is bedevilled by variability. NHS Alliance CEO Mike Sobanja and Cegedim Relationship Management’s David Round look at the implications of the Bill for industry in the next 12 months.

The Health & Social Care Bill has, as we all suspected it would, survived the onslaught and made the statute book. But the hard work really does start here. In truth, implementation of the reforms on the ground began many months ago – but the process will continue for some years to come. It is a time of great uncertainty for NHS and industry alike. We now have official confirmation of where we are heading, but do we really know how we are going to get there? And with health need omnipresent, what should we be doing to protect the needs of patients today as we journey towards the health system of tomorrow? The wider call is for more collaborative working between the industry and the NHS. And there is much that the industry can do to support the significant challenges its customers face.

So where are we now? And what do pharmaceutical companies, facing an NHS in flux and customer groups in transition, need to do to support the health service and drive improvements in care? At a time of uncertainty, the industry must first do two things: follow the law, and follow the money.

Following the law and the money
At the moment – in law – we still have the presence of 151 Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). These are, of course, clustering together, while alongside them a high number of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are steadily being established. For now, however, PCTs remain legally responsible for the delivery of healthcare services in the UK – and will continue to do so until April 2013. PCTs are currently accountable for about 80% of a total NHS budget of roughly £110 billion. It is estimated that approximately £30 billion of this has already been delegated to around 250 CCGs. But whilst PCTs can legitimately delegate their powers, they cannot delegate accountability. If someone in a shadow CCG busts the budget or, worse still, a patient dies by virtue of a poor decision elsewhere – the ultimate responsibility still lies with the PCT.

The situation on the ground is therefore complicated. Power currently rests with a number of PCT clusters acting on behalf of still legal and existing PCTs, who are delegating cash and power on the ground to CCGs. In turn, the CCGs are enjoying increasing control over finances, though technically, they are not yet legally in existence.

So if the task for 2012 is to follow the law and follow the money, pharma must focus on developing its powers of local intelligence. The fundamentals are simple, but the devil is in the detail. The law tells us who is technically responsible, the money tells us who has been delegated the power and the pound. The £30 billion question for pharma, however, is: where has the money been delegated? And the answer, of course, varies from locality to locality.

Developing the knowledge: think local, and national
And so the industry is playing a new game called ‘Spot the Commissioner’. To compete, pharmaceutical companies – and in particular their field-based professionals – need to build and maintain knowledge of local circumstances that, to a large extent, they’ve not previously had.

The move towards a localised health service is a direction of travel rather than an absolute. Moving forward, the industry perhaps needs to view the NHS as a healthcare system that operates within a national framework, but with more local decision-making. The balance of power between local and national is dependent upon which aspect of the healthcare service, and which therapeutic area, is being discussed. NICE provides a good example. In theory, the statutes require that funding is made available for technology appraisals as formal TAGs within three months of NICE making a declaration. But the reality is that whereas NICE doesn’t have to consider affordability, local decision-makers do – and therefore exactly how they implement that will inform their local decision.

As such, pharmaceutical sales professionals need to keep one eye on the national scene and one eye on the local scene – and apply that knowledge to their individual therapeutic area. They need to think very hard about how any national decisions will affect their product at a local territory level. The promotion of pharmaceuticals has moved beyond the traditional sequential sale – it is now much more sophisticated. This sophistication is only likely to increase in the future. An example of this will be the introduction of Health and Wellbeing Boards. These are already establishing under the umbrella of local authorities and will bring together interests from a wide variety of other groups: employers, magistrates, courts, local authorities etc. These will have a significant influence on local health services.

Variability: process, progress and prescribing
In such a changing and dynamic customer marketplace, the challenge of playing Spot the Commissioner becomes ever more difficult. Ironically, the only one constant is the prevalence of variability. There is variability right across the system, particularly in terms of progress around the health reforms. For example, there are local areas adjacent to one another where one locality has seen significant lawful delegation of powers to CCGs, while its neighbours have seen very little. This variability is likely to continue for some time – beyond the point where CCGs are authorised as official legal bodies. Authorisation itself is not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – it may be conditional. A conditional authorisation may mean that a CCG has power to make decisions over some things, but not others. A CCG may, for example, be authorised to commission acute services locally, but not mental health services.

At a wider level, variability in local progress with NHS reforms is surpassed by the even more significant issue of variability in care across the UK. The introduction of the Atlas of Variation in November 2010 has brought the issue into much sharper national focus and highlighted areas where progress can be made. There is, of course, variability in every disease area. Here are two very different examples. For patients with type II diabetes, the likelihood of suffering a lower leg amputation as a result of the disease is greater in the South West of England than it is in the South East. On the other hand, around the issue of cancer referral times, there is huge variation across the country in terms of GPs referring patients to secondary care for earlier diagnosis. The latter is an example of variability in health care – the former is a great illustration of variability in health outcomes.

Addressing inappropriate variability is a key priority for the NHS. And it is an area where the pharmaceutical industry can help make a real difference. Pharma companies could start by looking at the variability in the prescribing of their own products. If they can identify where that variability is and draw it to the attention of the health service locally, they will be better placed to offer support to help address it. The industry could consider undertaking Health Equity Audits to generate disease-specific data to support commissioning. For example, if you are a sales professional, what could you tell a customer about how your therapy is used in terms of its distribution among social classes, poor or rich and ethnic groups? What can you say about its relative prescribing across geographical areas? This is key information. It’s likely that there will be all kinds of variability going on that the industry could be helping the NHS address – and in doing so, it will also drive the market. By combining publicly-available prescribing data with activity data and other readily-available metrics, companies can improve their sales and marketing strategies by providing customers with the best information to help inform commissioning decisions.

The value of data
Robust data and information is the lifeblood of good commissioning, and good commissioning is the lifeblood of good health outcomes. At present, few, if any, commissioners will have complete and comprehensive access to the right data on which they can base critical commissioning decisions. But, in a collaborative environment, many would be willing to work with the industry to help create that evidence-base. As the NHS restructure unfolds, pharma can be a credible source of information for commissioners – though probably only one of a number of sources. Increasingly the health service will seek to identify data itself, and the Atlas of Variation is a good example of that. Increasingly, there are good examples of joint working where parties have come together and delivered results. In a collaborative era, wracked by challenge and change, the industry and the NHS have a responsibility to develop that relationship further.

Pharma can certainly emerge as a valuable partner to the NHS as it moves through its transition. But the generation and communication of robust and relevant data will be key to progress. In the game of Spot the Commissioner, the best sales professionals will be those who understand the local situation, understand what is driving it and align their key messages so that they are seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. Undoubtedly, access to good data will underpin everything.

Mike Sobanja is CEO, NHS Alliance. David Round is General Manager, Cegedim Relationship Management.

With the Government aiming to increase innovation within the NHS, pharma has been tasked with helping to meet the challenge. Omar Ali, in his Matrix Revolutions series, focuses on the means to help the industry find the next big thing.  

With so many documents to read – white papers, NHS initiatives and DH directives – keeping tabs on the direction of travel of the NHS, as well as the pace of change, makes life difficult; and that’s not including the latest clinical trials, review publications and NICE guidance. In this issue of the Matrix Revolutions, I want to review one of the most important and potentially game changing documents to have
crossed my desk: Innovation, Health and Wealth.

The document comes under ‘improvement and efficiency’ from the DH and has an impressive circulation list. However, if the cascade didn’t get past those at directorship level, the average GP and healthcare professional may not have received what is a very important document. It also goes hand-in-hand with a story from NICE in February – Improving access to NICE-approved drugs – which provided the NHS with a best-practice guide on the implementation of local formularies in accordance with national guidance.

Innovation, Health and Wealth calls for all NHS organisations to come to ‘action’ by starting planning processes for the implementation of innovative new treatments approved by NICE.

“…while the NHS is recognised as a world leader in invention, the spread of those inventions within the NHS has often been too slow, and sometimes even the best of them fail to achieve widespread use”

I think we would all recognise this symptom of the NHS and list numerous examples. The UK is well known in being conservative with its adoption and prescribing of new drugs. But when NICE makes deep probing evaluations of new treatments it may be disturbing to find such variation in the implementation of best practice and subsequent availability of new medicines for patients.

It’s well known that when HTA agencies reject drugs the NHS is very good at implementing rapid ‘decommissioned’ formularies, which make general prescribing and availability very limited. However, when NICE does approve a new treatment, the variable uptake observed within the NHS as a whole has resulted in this new initiative.

“The challenge both for the NHS and for its industry partners is to pursue innovations that genuinely add value but not cost”

This is interesting how it adds up… I’m supposed to work with you to find innovations that don’t add cost… The problem with documents is rhetoric and direction. In reality, implementation will come down to precise and specific details. There are not many new drugs that ‘don’t add cost’ – they all add cost! The modelling comes in finding those that may offset some of the costs (QIPP).

“This report has been developed as part of the Prime Minister’s UK Strategy for Health Innovation and Life Sciences. The aim of this strategy is to ensure that the UK maintains and builds on its world leading position for life sciences, that the potential of life sciences to contribute to UK growth is realised, and that the UK remains and grows as an attractive location for investment now and in the future”

The flavour of the document paints a clear picture of investment from pharma which will potentially deteriorate within the UK due to poor uptake/diffusion by the NHS. The difficulty lays in that ‘uptake’ criteria for the NHS doesn’t have ‘investment’ as part of the decision process. For example, if a company invests millions into UK R&D and produces a poor, non-innovative and non-cost effective drug, should we put it on formulary due to the fact they have invested in the UK economy? If the answer is ‘yes’, we all need to change the paradigm and throw QIPP out of the window. I guess the alternative is how long can pharma keep resourcing UK investment and see no return? Not long in this climate. Surely then the answer is as seen above: the challenge of making new, innovative drugs cost effective.

Having helped bring NHS payers, CCG commissioners and pharma together, it brings some common ground on market access. I have found that with all of the details, some dedicated quality time with stakeholders and some flexibility from pharma, we can always find some manner of value-added to the product and/or a financial/value proposition that changes the paradigm. The truth is we don’t spend enough quality time talking together about the real issues. We tend to spend poorly co-ordinated NHS/pharma interactions looking at insane cost-models and budget impacts that are largely irrelevant. Add to that ABPI/compliance and internal concordance issues, and the NHS and pharma are often dancing around the tables instead of having decent commercial business discussions that pave the way to a healthier, wealthier future for both.

Potential barriers
“Poor access to evidence, data and metrics”

I have been impressed with some of the data informatics I have seen that actually represent data handling with a view to Secondary Uses Service (SUS) information, hospital episodes and prescribing by the CCG sector or a PCT. Here, pharma is beginning to excel themselves and it does have an influence on working together. This approach is far better than those companies who have a black-box approach to health economics.

“Insufficient recognition and celebration of innovation and innovators”

It’s hard for NHS innovators to ‘step out’ and stick their heads above the parapets when those around them are stuck in the same old ways. Far from recognition or reward, one can expect pushing uphill and against the grain. The only way to succeed here is to believe in the cause of innovation and true improvement. My feeling is those ‘beacons of light’ are beginning to shine in healthcare – and love it or hate it – one of the strengths of the Health Bill is bringing those leaders to the forefront through sheer necessity. My observation is that the pharma culture celebrates innovation from the core – it’s what you do and what you believe in. Being an optimist, I believe pharma has a role on the ground in bringing some of that innovation to ‘rub-off’ on your NHS customers.

“Financial levers do not reward innovators and can act as a disincentive to adoption and diffusion”

You may have read my previous Matrix Revolutions ‘case’ on Prolia (denosumab) – it had a NICE TAG but saw variable uptake, even a year after its recommendation. This case clearly outlined how micro-economics and financial levers can stall the introduction of new innovative therapies. But getting the tariffs to match, commissioning to fund and finding the code to unlock prescribing took a long time… why? Partly because our own informatics is poor – an example of the NHS barrier – and partly because dealing with payer issues doesn’t come first-hand to most brand teams.
Other financial levers that will inhibit uptake include:

• Enhanced LES & DES warfarin payments to GPs which will be a threatened source of income with new oral anticoagulants.
• QoF cholesterol targets of 5mmol/l in the face of innovative agents which may achieve lower cholesterol targets and reduced outcomes.
• QIPP Indicators aiming for a percentage of metformin and sulphonylurea when newer agents for type 2 diabetes reduce incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes and save money on blood glucose testing strips.

In the next issue of Matrix Revolutions, Omar Ali continues to review the DH’s modernisation plans and also focuses on what makes the diffusion of innovation happen. 

Omar Ali is the Formulary Development Pharmacist for Surrey & Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust and sits on the External Reference Group for Cost Impact Modelling for NICE. He can be reached at omar.ali@sash.nhs.uk.

NICE has recommended Novartis’ Tasigna (nilotinib) and Glivec (imatinib) for the first line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML), but failed to recommend BMS’ Sprycel (dasatinib) in final guidance.

Despite evidence demonstrating Sprycel and Tasigna to be more clinically effective than standard dose Glivec, Sprycel’s cost swayed NICE’s decision after Novartis agreed to supply Tasigna at a reduced price.

Professor Carole Longson, Director of the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation at NICE, says the cost reduction “enabled” the independent Appraisal Committee to recommend its use on the NHS.

The appraisal incorporates a partial review of guidance published in October 2003 which recommended standard dose Glivec for first line treatment of CML.

NICE’s independent Appraisal Committee considered results of clinical trials that showed statistically more people receiving Sprycel and Glivec had a complete cytogenetic response and a major molecular response compared with people using Glivec after a 12 month review.

The Committee also noted the opinions of clinical specialists and patient experts who suggested that Tasigna and Sprycel were more effective than standard dose Glivec – despite it being a “very effective” option for the majority of patients.

Sprycel and Tasigna both cost more than £30,000 per patient, per year. Standard dose Glivec costs in the region of £20,000. However, after Novartis had agreed a Patient Access Scheme with the Department of Health for Tasigna, NICE deemed it was a cost effective use of NHS resources.

“The recommendations reaffirm the use of imatinib as an effective treatment for the majority of patients and a cost effective use of NHS resources, and we are also very pleased to be able to add a further treatment option for these patients by recommending nilotinib,” said Professor Longson.

“Although no trials directly comparing dasatinib and nilotinib were available, the committee concluded from indirect comparisons that dasatinib and nilotinib could be considered equally as effective in treating CML.

“However, the manufacturer of nilotinib has already agreed with the Department of Health to provide the drug to the NHS at a discounted price.”

CML is a rare condition that affects around 560 people in the UK each year.

Gilenya (fingolimod) has become the first pill-based treatment for highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) recommended on the NHS after being backed in final guidance by NICE.

NICE had originally failed to recommend the pill in draft guidance but reconsidered its decision after Novartis and clinicians provided additional information and analysis on the effectiveness of the medication.

Professor Carole Longson, Director of the Health Technology Evaluation Centre at NICE, says the convenient treatment “is a valuable new therapy” for patients with RRMS.

RRMS is estimated to affect around 27,500 people in England and Wales and is the most common type of multiple sclerosis. Treatments to manage relapses are usually administered by injection.

NICE now specifically recommends the “innovative” treatment for adults who have an unchanged or increased relapse rate or ongoing severe relapses compared to the previous year, despite treatment.

But NICE states the recommendation only applies if Novartis provides Gilenya under the proposed terms in its confidential Patient Access Scheme it agreed with the DH.

“We are pleased to recommend fingolimod as a treatment option for the specific patient population for whom it has been demonstrated to be cost effective, providing Novartis applies its proposed discount,” said Professor Longson. “Multiple sclerosis can be a disabling condition and so we hope that this novel treatment will help to reduce relapses for these people.”

The treatment recently had its label updated to include new prescribing guidelines after the EMA and FDA raised concerns over cardiovascular events in certain patients.

How well do you understand the various priorities of a key element of your customer-base: the payer? Omar Ali pens Part II of a typical day in the life of a Formulary Pharmacist.

10AM : GP REFUSED PRESCRIBING OF A PAIN DRUG/ACTION ASAP
OK, we have been here before – this product is non-formulary. It has never been applied for. The GP is well within rights to refuse prescribing. The consultant knows it is non-formulary and has ‘requested’ via a letter – actually stating it is non-formulary, so would the GP kindly prescribe it.

The GP is irate, and the patient is now confused and unhappy: “why wont you prescribe what the expert/consultant has asked for?” There is a stalemate. Not a great scenario – this call is backed up with emails going back with two PCT advisers, a commissioner, a GP and a pain nurse. This will mean going to see the consultant and being firm: these are the rules of engagement, this is the financial framework, this is how I can help you manage your patient.

Thoughts for pharma

We call this ‘lockdown’. It’s a process by which redundancy is built into the formulary processes to ensure compliance, limited loopholes and consequential policing. What’s crazy is I know the brand, and I know the rep. Every month she asks: “when is the next D&T?” I tell her – and nothing happens. Next month, she asks again. So what’s happening?

The representative knows she needs a consultant to bring her brand to the D&T but can’t/won’t affect it. The representative then considers ways around the D&T; KOL to find loopholes, write to the GP, prescribe on FP10(HP), do a non-formulary request, try IFR, etc. In fact, exhaust all opportunities except the one that is needed: D&T approval.

Sometimes the pharma company has a brand philosophy which doesn’t press the right buttons: they have representatives calling the wrong people, the quality of the representative is not good enough, the seniority/decision-making-abilities are lacking.

This ‘lockdown’ effect will usually mean that the company goes round in circles. It focuses on new materials and a wonderfully articulated campaign – usually around ‘Edith’, a 50-year-old patient who is suffering from constipation and can’t enjoy her grandchildren. “If only you would prescribe the brand for her. You would if it was your own grandmother”.

The ‘payer avoidance’ strategy will not work. Lockdown is getting tighter. With Clinical Commissioning Groups it will be even more so. The financial framework will be more akin to trying to prescribe a non-formulary drug whilst working for BUPA, who would neither tolerate nor reimburse because the formulary is under a financial restrictions.

Indeed, the pain market has also intensified. This means numerous brands shouting for a louder voice in an intense market. Neuropathy, Opioids, Fentanyl/breakthrough Ca pain – add these up and you have pharma running around competing for a slice of the pie. Given all the warnings we had with COX-IIs, now we have them with NSAIDS, and of course even the weak Opioids have ‘addictive warnings’ all over them.

It is not surprising we are caught in the headlights of where to go in the name of safety and analgesia. Please someone, be it a brand manager or someone with payer access, see the bigger picture. Help us with the whole pathway. See our needs and work in partnership with us.

11AM : MEETING WITH PHARMA BRAND MANAGER
It’s not often I get a visit from a brand manager! We have been struggling for some time attempting to commission a funding pathway for an osteoporosis product – see earlier Matrix Revolutions. However, we may have a solution now with a variety of process mapping models.

I have finally received a number of options and interestingly the applicable HRG codes for activity within this domain. This has been a headache, despite a NICE TAG within the context of this ongoing saga. A resolution is long overdue. After a lot of liaising and a lot of technical HRG work-up, we may end up up with a streamlined prescribing pathway which lines up the PCT, the GPC, the acute trust, and fracture liaison service.

Thoughts for pharma

There is an intriguing change of paradigm when I am sat having an adult conversation with a brand manager compared to a ‘rep-call’. I realise that brand managers can’t go and see all their customers face-to-face.

But the paradigm shift is palpable. Why? Here we have it: The representative is ‘detailing me’ – that is never going to compare with an adult conversation with a brand manager who gets the bigger picture.

But something else, potentially more devastating: the brand manager is able to vocalise the ‘brand story’ in a far more compelling way than the ‘local rep’. That’s interesting, because the local rep is trained in the ‘brand messages’.

Even if you put aside that the brand manager has a ‘big picture understanding’, the fact that the value of the brand was unbelievably clear means that somewhere along the factory chain of sales force effectiveness and tier upon tier of managers, the message is lost in Chinese whispers. Why? I don’t actually know.

The representatives that are sent to see me are not in the same locator of food chain as I am. In effect, pharma is sending people of a certain authority that doesn’t fit with where I am. Even with account management. Remember, I talk clinical, I talk financial, I do commissioning maps, I do total drug budgets – I still have a boss.

However, pharma send people to see me with the following authority: “I need to get my medic to answer that…I need to get my line-manager to answer that…I need to call in my health economics person to see you…I need to call my regional account manager to approve that…”

When will I see all these people? Why do I need to see them all? Is it all ABPI, is it internal compliance, or is it sales force design? I’m not all for it, but I do see where some industry leaders are coming from in proposing authorised account managers answerable to MDs with budgets run at their own liability and expertise.

I recently did a ‘Payer Process Mapping Day’ for a pharma company/team of Executive Healthcare Development Managers. It fascinated me. Pharma has spoon-fed even higher NHS teams to such a level, that if you clear the playing field and ask them to come up with solutions to landscapes, they go blank. at day, the summarising  suggestions was simply: “we need a toolkit from head-office”. It was worrying. My conclusion?

We need to innovate within the NHS. Pharma companies are stakeholders. We should be asking you to help us innovate, but the people you are sending me… while I’m wanting them to look at the traffic jams I have ahead of me, and help navigate local influencing factors, they are waiting for a tool-kit from head-office!

11.30AM : CARDIOLOGY CONSULTANTS FORUM
Cardiology prescribing has so many focal features right now, I’m struggling to keep up with payer issues. This is due to a mixture of NHS demands, D&T processes, a sizable shift in coronary intervention work – and the drugs required within such units) and recent launches of new products that are proving challenging to implement within our health economy.

The format takes place as follows: I basically ‘gatecrash’ the forum and hijack a section of the agenda to use the opportunity for both information flow – in both directions, buy-in – to various prescribing initiatives, D&T processes and budgetary issues, and input to a number of shared-care-prescribing guidelines.

The aim is to open GPC/CCG cluster prescribing. A lot of this is about supportive communications; managing up – to my Chief and Director of Finance, and managing down – to pharmacy team on formulary policing. I need to take the consultants from ‘one place to another place’ within each micro-managed sub therapy. It’s a give-and-take scenario.

Thoughts for pharma

Cardiology has never really left the ‘priorities’ list. Right now, although there are some exciting and challenging implementations, I foresee a rocky road ahead. Antiplatelets. With the onset of generic clopidogrel’s price suddenly dropping like a stone – Plavix was £40 pcm, generic clopidogrel is now £2.50pcm, the Director of Finance is looking at the cost savings that we have built into our financial planning.

But here’s the catch – not only do we have branded prasugrel, we also now have branded ticagrelor, both pushing upward of £50pcm+. So how do we manage this? I have potential new pipleline antiplatelets which have offerings to interventional cardiology versus a savings plan that I will need to explain if I renege on. Tough. After much consternation, we’d put prasugrel onto our formulary, and now we have displaced this with ticagrelor.

We still have the generic clopidogrel as first line – but we always, always need a second line drug. Interestingly, neither company appears to have come forward with a QIPP line yet. One of them have thought about patient access schemes. NICE looks like it will be happy to support either. Cardiac networks play an important role – the cardiologists just want somewhere else to go after generic failure.

This was a learning curve for me. Whilst the clinical ‘story’ for either brand never really did magical wonders for the payers, the cardiac network is influential, and I think the companies are now maybe reconciling a ‘payer value story’.

There was a scary moment for one of the companies – a serious hospital discount nearly had us giving away one of the brands as a 12-month supply on the rucksack of a patient discharged from the angio suite – with a cost-saving share with the PCT. The company in question quickly made that disappear! It’s fascinating and like a game of chess sometimes…

Dronedarone. Even with a NICE TAG behind it, this has not been easy to implement. It really does take some serious ‘heads-together’ and I have never seen such fierce debate between clinicians and payers. Affordability and the increasing prevalence of AF makes for a great D&T discussion.

The next meeting I have with the directorate is to implement the use of this agent in young patients – outside NICE who recommended in 75yr+ – as the clinicians see greatest benefit here. This is where the payer’s approach needs serious consideration. All being well, I’ve managed to create an amber/shared care with PCT funding to keep all happy – let’s see what happens at the formalisation and authorisation meeting.

NICE chest pain implementation. There are significant stakeholders here with a number of large meetings across the PCT – payers, consultants, commissioners, coronary care units, etc. The implementation involves a number of small ‘mini-projects’, putting different drugs into the formulary for specific uses to help implement NICE.

That’s the way proper process mapping occurs. It’s more about the drug assisting the pathway, not about the drug per se. I see a lot of work to be done here. But I also expect to see consistency across the PCT.

Read Omar’s previous article in this series on Account Management in pharma.

Omar Ali is the Formulary Development Pharmacist for Surrey & Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust and sits on the External Reference Group for Cost Impact Modelling for NICE. He may be reached on omar.ali@sash.nhs.uk