The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
December 2009 (Volume 87)
Quarterly Article
Ruth R. Faden
Kalipso Chalkidou
John Appleby
Hugh R. Waters
Jonathon P. Leider
Nov 5, 2024
Oct 30, 2024
Oct 23, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Context: This article compares the United Kingdom’s and the United States’ experiences with expensive cancer drugs to illustrate the challenges posed by new, extremely costly, medical technologies. Methods: This article describes British and American coverage, access, and cost-sharing policies with regard to expensive cancer drugs and then compares the costs of eleven such drugs to British patients, American Medicare beneficiaries, and American patients purchasing the drugs in the retail market. Three questions posed by these comparisons are then examined: First, which system is fairer ? In which system are cancer patients better off ? Assuming that no system can sustainably provide to everyone at least some expensive cancer drugs for some clinical indications, what challenges does each system face in making these difficult determinations? Findings: In both the British and American health care systems, not all patients who might benefit from or desire access to expensive cancer drugs have access to them. The popular characterization of the United States, where all cancer drugs are available for all to access as and when needed, and that of the British NHS, where top-down population rationing poses insurmountable obstacles to British patients’ access, are far from the reality in both countries. Conclusions: Key elements of the British system are fairer than the American system, and the British system is better structured to deal with difficult decisions about expensive end-of-life cancer drugs. Both systems face common ethical, financial, organizational, and priority-setting challenges in making these decisions.
Author(s): Ruth R. Faden; Kalipso Chalkidou; John Appleby; Hugh R. Waters; Jonathon P. Leider
Keywords: fairness; access; cancer drugs; affordability; rationing; prioritization; priority setting
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 87, Issue 4 (pages 789–819) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00579.x Published in 2009
