A National Cancer Grid pooled procurement initiative, India.

In health systems with little public funding and decentralized procurement processes, the pricing and quality of anti-cancer medicines directly affects access to effective anti-cancer therapy. Factors such as differential pricing, volume-dependent negotiation and reliance on low-priced generics without any evaluation of their quality can lead to supply and demand lags, high out-of-pocket expenditures for patients and poor treatment outcomes. While pooled procurement of medicines can help address some of these challenges, monitoring of the procurement process requires considerable administrative investment. Group negotiation to fix prices, issuing of uniform contracts with standardized terms and conditions, and procurement by individual hospitals also reduce costs and improve quality without significant investment. The National Cancer Grid, a network of more than 250 cancer centres in India, piloted pooled procurement to improve negotiability of high-value oncology and supportive care medicines. A total of 40 drugs were included in this pilot. The pooled demand for the drugs from 23 centres was equivalent to 15.6 billion Indian rupees (197 million United States dollars (US$)) based on maximum retail prices. The process included technical and financial evaluation followed by contracts between individual centres and the selected vendors. Savings of 13.2 billion Indian Rupees (US$ 166.7million) were made compared to the maximum retail prices. The savings ranged from 23% to 99% (median: 82%) and were more with generics than innovator and newly patented medicines. This study reveals the advantages of group negotiation in pooled procurement for high-value medicines, an approach that can be applied to other health systems.

Lorsque les systèmes de santé reçoivent peu de fonds publics et que leurs processus d'achat sont décentralisés, le prix et la qualité des médicaments contre le cancer ont un impact direct sur l'accès aux traitements efficaces contre la maladie. Des facteurs tels que l'application de prix différenciés, les négociations en fonction des volumes ainsi que la confiance placée dans des génériques bon marché dont la qualité n'a pas été évaluée peuvent entraîner des décalages entre l'offre et la demande, d'énormes dépenses non remboursables pour les patients et de piètres résultats thérapeutiques. Bien que les acquisitions groupées de médicaments puissent contribuer à résoudre certains de ces problèmes, le suivi du processus d'achat requiert un engagement considérable au niveau administratif. Les négociations collectives en vue de fixer les tarifs, l'établissement de contrats types assortis de conditions générales standardisées, mais aussi les achats effectués par des hôpitaux en particulier peuvent également faire baisser les coûts et améliorer la qualité sans nécessiter d'importants investissements. Le National Cancer Grid, un réseau réunissant plus de 250 centres d'oncologie en Inde, a testé un dispositif d'achat groupé visant à assurer une meilleure négociabilité pour des médicaments et soins de soutien essentiels contre le cancer. Au total, 40 substances ont été prises en compte dans ce projet pilote. La demande groupée en médicaments émise par 23 centres équivalait à 15,6 milliards de roupies indiennes (197 millions de dollars américains) d'après le prix maximal de vente au détail. Ce processus prévoyait une évaluation technique et financière, puis des contrats entre chaque centre et les distributeurs sélectionnés. Des économies de 13,2 milliards de roupies indiennes (166,7 millions de dollars américains) ont pu être réalisées par rapport au prix maximal de vente au détail. Ces économies étaient comprises entre 23 et 99% (médiane: 82%) et concernaient davantage les médicaments génériques que les marques et les médicaments récemment brevetés. La présente étude révèle les avantages que représentent les négociations collectives lors des achats groupés de médicaments essentiels, une approche applicable à d'autres systèmes de santé.

En los sistemas sanitarios con escasa financiación pública y procesos de adquisición descentralizados, el sistema de fijación de precios y la calidad de los medicamentos contra el cáncer afectan directamente al acceso a una terapia eficaz contra dicha enfermedad. Factores como los diferentes sistemas de determinación de precios, la negociación en función del volumen y la dependencia de genéricos de bajo precio sin evaluación de su calidad pueden generar retrasos en la oferta y la demanda, elevados gastos para los pacientes y malos resultados en el tratamiento. Aunque la adquisición conjunta de medicamentos puede ayudar a abordar algunos de estos retos, el seguimiento del proceso de adquisición requiere una inversión administrativa considerable. La negociación colectiva a la hora de determinar los precios, la emisión de contratos unificados con términos y condiciones estandarizados y la adquisición por parte de algunos hospitales también reducen los costes y mejoran la calidad sin necesidad de realizar una gran inversión. La Red Nacional de Cáncer, una red que cuenta con más de 250 centros oncológicos en la India, puso a prueba la adquisición conjunta con el fin de mejorar la negociabilidad de medicamentos oncológicos y de tratamiento complementario que resultaban costosos. En esta prueba piloto se incluyó un total de 40 medicamentos. La demanda conjunta de medicamentos por parte de 23 centros fue equivalente a 15 600 millones de rupias indias (197 millones USD) según los precios minoristas máximos. El proceso incluyó una evaluación técnica y financiera, así como contratos entre centros independientes y proveedores seleccionados. Se logró un ahorro de 13 200 millones de rupias indias (166,7 millones USD) en comparación con los precios minoristas máximos. El ahorro osciló entre el 23 y el 99% (media: 82%) y fue más alto con los medicamentos genéricos que con los de marca y los recién patentados. Este estudio pone de manifiesto las ventajas de la negociación colectiva en lo que respecta a la adquisición conjunta de medicamentos costosos, un enfoque que se puede aplicar a otros sistemas sanitarios.

Global application of National Comprehensive Cancer Network resource-stratified guidelines for systemic treatment of colon cancer: a population-based, customisable model for cost, demand, and procurement.

BACKGROUND: Resource-stratified guidelines (RSGs) can inform systemic treatment decisions in the face of limited resources. The objective of this study was to develop a customisable modelling tool to predict the demand, cost, and drug procurement needs of delivering National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) RSG-based systemic treatment for colon cancer. METHODS: We developed decision trees for first-course systemic therapy for colon cancer based on the NCCN RSGs. Decision trees were merged with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results programme, the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 national estimates for colon cancer incidence, country-level income data, and data on drug costs from Redbook (USA), the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australia), and the Management Sciences for Health 2015 International Medical Products price guide to estimate global treatment needs and costs, and forecast drug procurement. Simulations and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the effect of scaling up services globally and the effect of alternative stage distributions on treatment demand and cost. We generated a customisable model, in which estimates can be tailored to local incidence, epidemiological, and costing data. FINDINGS: First-course systemic therapy is indicated in 608 314 (53·6%) of 1 135 864 colon cancer diagnoses in 2020. Indications for first-course systemic therapy are projected to rise to 926 653 in 2040; the indications in 2020 might be as high as 826 123 (72·7%), depending on stage distribution assumptions. Adhering to NCCN RSGs, patients with colon cancer in low-income and middle income countries (LMICs) would constitute 329 098 (54·1%) of 608 314 global systemic therapy demands, but only 10% of global expenditure on systemic therapies. The total cost of NCCN RSG-based first-course systemic therapy for colon cancer in 2020 would be between about US$4·2 and about $4·6 billion, depending on stage distribution. If all patients with colon cancer in 2020 were treated according to maximal resources, global expenditure on systemic therapy for colon cancer would rise to around $8·3 billion. INTERPRETATION: We have developed a customisable model that can be applied at global, national, and subnational levels to estimate systemic treatment needs, forecast drug procurement, and calculate expected drug costs on the basis of local data. This tool can be used to plan resource allocation for colon cancer globally. FUNDING: None.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in India: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health-care systems, leading to concerns about its subsequent impact on non-COVID disease conditions. The diagnosis and management of cancer is time sensitive and is likely to be substantially affected by these disruptions. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care in India. METHODS: We did an ambidirectional cohort study at 41 cancer centres across India that were members of the National Cancer Grid of India to compare provision of oncology services between March 1 and May 31, 2020, with the same time period in 2019. We collected data on new patient registrations, number of patients visiting outpatient clinics, hospital admissions, day care admissions for chemotherapy, minor and major surgeries, patients accessing radiotherapy, diagnostic tests done (pathology reports, CT scans, MRI scans), and palliative care referrals. We also obtained estimates from participating centres on cancer screening, research, and educational activities (teaching of postgraduate students and trainees). We calculated proportional reductions in the provision of oncology services in 2020, compared with 2019. FINDINGS: Between March 1 and May 31, 2020, the number of new patients registered decreased from 112 270 to 51 760 (54% reduction), patients who had follow-up visits decreased from 634 745 to 340 984 (46% reduction), hospital admissions decreased from 88 801 to 56 885 (36% reduction), outpatient chemotherapy decreased from 173634 to 109 107 (37% reduction), the number of major surgeries decreased from 17 120 to 8677 (49% reduction), minor surgeries from 18 004 to 8630 (52% reduction), patients accessing radiotherapy from 51 142 to 39 365 (23% reduction), pathological diagnostic tests from 398 373 to 246 616 (38% reduction), number of radiological diagnostic tests from 93 449 to 53 560 (43% reduction), and palliative care referrals from 19 474 to 13 890 (29% reduction). These reductions were even more marked between April and May, 2020. Cancer screening was stopped completely or was functioning at less than 25% of usual capacity at more than 70% of centres during these months. Reductions in the provision of oncology services were higher for centres in tier 1 cities (larger cities) than tier 2 and 3 cities (smaller cities). INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the delivery of oncology services in India. The long-term impact of cessation of cancer screening and delayed hospital visits on cancer stage migration and outcomes are likely to be substantial. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the Hindi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.