Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Jessica Pace (a1), Sallie-Anne Pearson (a2) and Wendy Lipworth (a3)


Objectives: In recent years, numerous frameworks have been developed to enhance the legitimacy of health technology assessment processes. Despite efforts to implement these “legitimacy frameworks,” medicines funding decisions can still be perceived as lacking in legitimacy. We, therefore, sought to examine stakeholder views on factors that they think should be considered when making decisions about the funding of high-cost breast cancer therapies, focusing on those that are not included in current frameworks and processes.

Methods: We analyzed published discourse on the funding of high-cost breast-cancer therapies. Relevant materials were identified by searching the databases Google, Google Scholar, and Factiva in August 2014 and July 2016 and these were analyzed thematically.

Results: We analyzed fifty published materials and found that stakeholders, for the most part, want to be able to access medicines more quickly and at the same time as other patients and for decision makers to be more flexible with regards to evidence requirements and to use a wider range of criteria when evaluating therapies. Many also advocated for existing process to be accelerated or bypassed to improve access to therapies.

Conclusions: Our results illustrate that a stakeholder-derived conceptualization of legitimacy emphasizes principles of accelerated access and is not fully accounted for by existing frameworks and processes aimed at promoting legitimacy. However, further research examining the ethical, political, and clinical implications of the stakeholder claims raised here is needed before firm policy recommendations can be made.



Hide All
1. Littlejohns, P, Weale, A, Chalkidou, K, Faden, R, Teerawattananon, Y. Social values and health policy: A new international research programme. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26:285292.
2. Daniels, N, Sabin, JE. Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
3. Engelhardt, HT Jr. Confronting moral pluralism in posttraditional western societies: Bioethics critically reassessed. J Med Philos. 2011;36:243260.
4. Rothstein, B. Creating political legitimacy electoral democracy versus quality of government. Am Behav Sci. 2009;53:311330.
5. Prasad, V, Mailankody, S. The UK Cancer Drugs Fund Experiment and the US Cancer Drug Cost Problem: Bearing the cost of cancer drugs until it is unbearable. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:707712.
6. Linley, WG, Hughes, DA. Societal views on nice, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: A cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22: 948964.
7. Mayor, S. New “managed access” process for cancer drugs fund to go ahead, NHS England confirms. BMJ. 2016;352:i1208.
8. Sibbald, SL, Singer, PA, Upshur, R, Martin, DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:43.
9. Smith, N, Mitton, C, Hall, W, et al. High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context. Soc Sci Med. 2016;162:185192.
10. Degeling, C, Carter, SM, Rychetnik, L. Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2015;131:114121.
11. Wortley, S, Tong, A, Howard, K. Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: A nominal group technique with members of the public. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010265.
12. Green, C, Gerard, K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18:951976.
13. NICE Public Involvement Programme. (accessed April 26, 2017).
14. CADTH Common Drug Review Patient Input. (accessed April 26, 2017).
15. Australian Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee. Availability of new, innovative and specialist cancer drugs in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government; 2015.
16. Accelerated Access Review 2016. (accessed April 26, 2017).
17. Gallego, G, Taylor, SJ, Brien, JA. Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study. Health Policy. 2007;84:5866.
18. Martin, DK, Giacomini, M, Singer, PA. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 2002;61:279290.
19. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Haematology/oncology (cancer) approvals & safety notifications: Previous news items (updated December 7, 2014). (accessed April 27, 2017).
20. National Cancer Institute. FDA Approval for Pertuzumab (updated October 1, 2013). (accessed April 26, 2017).
21. Levin, J. FDA approves new treatment for late-stage breast cancer (updated February 22, 2013). (accessed April 26, 2017).
22. MacKenzie, R, Chapman, S, Salkeld, G, Holding, S. Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: Application of the rule of rescue? J R Soc Med. 2008;101:305312.
23. Gabe, J, Chamberlain, K, Norris, P, et al. The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of 'countervailing powers. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:23532361.
24. Fenton, E. Making fair funding decisions for high cost cancer care: The case of herceptin in New Zealand. Public Health Ethics. 2010;3:137146.
25. Patton, MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990.
26. Boon, WPC, Moors, EHM, Meijer, A, Schellekens, H. Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88:848853.
27. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval, priority review 2015 (updated September 14, 2015). (accessed April 26, 2017).
28. Fujiwara, Y. Evolution of frameworks for expediting access to new drugs in Japan. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15:293294.
29. Guidance for the Public, Industry, and CMS Staff: Coverage with Evidence Development (updated November 20, 2014). (accessed April 26, 2017).
30. Hints and tips for companies considering a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) proposal in England. (accessed April 26, 2017).
31. Framework for the introduction of a Managed Entry Scheme for submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (updated February 23, 2011). (accessed April 26, 2017).
32. FDA Commissioner announces Avastin decision: Drug not shown to be safe and effective in breast cancer patients (updated November 18, 2011). (accessed April 26, 2017).
33. Kim, C, Prasad, V. Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: An analysis of 5 years of US Food and Drug Administration Approvals. JAMA Int Med. 2015;175:19921994.
34. Lewis, JRR, Kerridge, I, Lipworth, W. Coverage with evidence development and managed entry in the funding of personalized medicine: Practical and ethical challenges for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:41124117.
35. Australian Government Department of Health Post-market Review of the Life Saving Drugs Programme (LSDP) (updated May 19, 2015). (accessed April 26, 2017).


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Pace et al supplementary material
Figure S1

 Word (21 KB)
21 KB
Supplementary materials

Pace et al supplementary material
Table S1

 Word (14 KB)
14 KB
Supplementary materials

Pace et al supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (18 KB)
18 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed