Center for Health System Sustainability

Huseyin Naci M.H.S., Ph.D.

London School of Economics and Political Science
H.Naci@lse.ac.uk
Research Profile

Biography

Huseyin Naci is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Huseyin serves as co-director of LSE’s Executive Master of Science program in Health Economics, Outcomes and Management in Clinical Sciences. He is also one of the Deputy Directors of LSE Health. Huseyin’s research evaluates the quantity and quality of the evidence base underpinning the approval, adoption, reimbursement, and use of new pharmaceutical products in Europe and the US. His research has appeared in leading medical and health policy journals, including JAMA, The Lancet, The BMJ, Health Affairs, and The Milbank Quarterly. His 2013 article comparing the mortality benefits of drug and non-drug interventions for common chronic conditions was selected as one of the “Five key BMJ research papers to mark the decade.” In 2020, Huseyin jointly led the development of the Lancet Series on Comparative Effectiveness, which identified the shortcomings of the current research landscape on new drugs both before and after approval, and outlined key changes to the regulatory system that would be required to ensure that patients, clinicians, and payers have timely access to the data they need for decision making.

Recent News

The Economist

How Britain decides which drugs to buy

Since 1999, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has weighed costs against benefits to help the NHS decide what it should buy. The institute’s boss, Sam Roberts, calls it a mindful “health-care innovation shopper”. Within a fixed budget, every new drug it buys risks squeezing essentials like GPs or ambulances among existing health-care services.
Read Article
The Lancet

Population-health impact of new drugs recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England during 2000–20: a retrospective analysis

Health systems experience difficult trade-offs when paying for new drugs. In England, funding recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for new drugs might generate health gains but inevitably result in forgone health as the funds cannot be used for alternative treatments and services. We aimed to evaluate the population health impact of NICE recommendations for new drugs during 2000–20.
Read Article
JAMA Internal Medicine

Health Technology Assessment in the US—A Word of Caution—Reply

In their Letter to the Editor, Olivença and colleagues question the benefit of adopting health technology assessment (HTA) in the US, and suggest it could result in fewer drugs being available to patients. They raise 3 main critiques of our study.1

First, Olivença et al note that patients in countries with HTA have voiced concerns about inadequate access to new therapies, citing 5 media reports from negative coverage decisions in England. The extent to which these reports represent the broader views of society is unclear. Recent decades have seen global consensus that universal health coverage is desirable for health care systems. Achieving universal coverage requires decisions about which services should be made available to maximize population health. As many new drugs offer little or no added therapeutic value,2 no coverage may be acceptable unless pharmaceutical companies offer reasonable prices (otherwise, funds would not be available to pay for other health services). In our study, we observed good coverage in all countries of high-value drugs following HTA review.
Read Article
JAMA Internal Medicine

Availability and Coverage of New Drugs in 6 High-Income Countries With Health Technology Assessment Bodies

Most high-income countries except the US rely on health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure that prices paid for new medicines reflect the value they provide.1,2 Health technology assessment bodies assess the relative clinical or economic impact of new drugs to guide pricing and coverage decisions. These assessments usually occur after marketing authorization by a medicines regulatory body (eg, European Medicines Agency), and patients may have little or no access to therapies not assessed favorably by HTA bodies. As Medicare considers using comparative effectiveness data to negotiate drug prices, examining HTA decisions abroad can inform US policymakers about how HTA affects the availability and coverage of new medicines.3 We analyzed HTA outcomes and review times in 6 countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, and Switzerland) for novel therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Read Article