nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.07.2014 | Editorial

NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered?

verfasst von: J. P. Raftery

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 7/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

This question goes to the heart of the use of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in healthcare decision making, notably by UK agencies, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the National Screening Committee and regarding immunisation, but with implications for other health systems that use the cost per QALY. NICE has indicated the range within which its threshold lies: £20k to £30k per QALY gained [1, 2]. The worry is that if these thresholds are too high, NICE’s recommendations could be doing more harm than good. This would happen when, say, recommending a drug on the basis of its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30k led other National Health Service (NHS) services with a low ICER being displaced. Do no harm (‘Non Nocere’) should apply to health economists as well as to doctors. …

NICE, Guide to the methods of technological appraisal. Ref: N1618; 2008.

NICE, Guide to the methods of technological appraisal. Ref: N0514; 2004.

Devlin N, Parkin N. Does NICE have an cost effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):437–52.PubMedCrossRef

Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E, Loomes G, Mason H, Odejar M, Pinto Prades JL, Robinson A, Ryan M, Shackley P, Smith R, Sugden R, Wildman J; the SVQ Research Team. Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. HTA J. 2010;14(27). http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon1427.pdf.

Martin S, Rice N, Smith PC. The link between health care spending and health outcomes in the new English primary care trusts. York: Centre for Health Economics; 2008.

Martin S, Rice N, Smith P. Does health care spending improve health outcomes? J Health Econ. 2008;27:826–42.PubMedCrossRef

Martin S, Rice N, Smith P. Comparing costs and outcomes across programmes of health care. Health Econ. 2012;21:316–37.PubMedCrossRef

Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, Devlin N, Smith PC, Sculpher M. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold final report. University of York CHE; 2013.

Barnsley P, Towse A, Karlberg S, Sussex J. Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. OHE. Occasional Paper 13/01; 2013.

10.

NICE Technology appraisal recommendation summary. http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/nicestatistics/TADecisionsRecommendationSummary.jsp.

11.

Raftery J. Costly failure of risk sharing scheme. BMJ. 2010;340:c1672.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Latimere C. NICE’s end of life decision making scheme: impact on population health. BMJ. 2013;346:f1363. doi:10.1136/bmj.f1363 (Published 21 March 2013).

13.

Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neil P, Parkin D. The influence of cost effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. OHE Research Paper 13/06; 2013.

14.

Apleby J, Poteliakhoff E, Shah K, Devlin N. Using patient-reported outcome measures to estimate cost-effectiveness of hip replacements in English hospitals. J R Soc Med. 2013;106(8):323–31. doi:10.1177/0141076813489678.CrossRef

15.

Dakin H, Gray A, Fitzpatrick R, MacLennan G, Murray D; The KAT Trial Group. Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis on a large trial data set. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000332.full?rss=1.

16.

Coronini-Cronberg S, Appleby J, Thompson J. Application of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data to estimate cost-effectiveness of hernia surgery in England. J R Soc Med. 2013;106:323–31.CrossRef

17.

Michaels JA, et al. Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost- effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV Trial). Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(13):1–96.PubMed

18.

Street A, Gutacker N, Bojke C, Devlin N, Daidone S. Variations in outcome and costs among NHS providers for common surgical procedures: econometric analyses of routinely collected data. Health Services Deliv Res. 2014;2(1), ISSN 2050-4349. doi:10.3310/hsdr02010.

19.

Eckermann S, Pekarsky B. Can the real opportunity cost stand up: displaced services, the straw man outside the room. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32(4):319-25.

20.

Paulden M, McCabe C, Karnon J. Achieving allocative efficiency in healthcare: nice in theory, not so NICE in practice? Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32(4):315-8.

21.

Barrett A, Roques T, Small M, Smith R. How much will herceptin really cost? BMJ. 2006;333. doi:10.1136/bmj.39008.624051.BE (Published 23 Nov 2006).

22.

Department of Health. Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 2014; 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pharmaceutical-price-regulation-scheme-2014.

Titel: NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered?
verfasst von: J. P. Raftery
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2014
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 7/2014
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0158-6

Springer Medizin

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2014

Barriers to the Uptake of Biosimilars and Possible Solutions: A Belgian Case Study

A Review of the Economics of Treating Clostridium difficile Infection

Mapping EQ-5D Utility Scores from the PedsQL™ Generic Core Scales

Challenges in Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Various Interventions for Cardiovascular Disease

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Interventions for Tuberculosis Control: DALYs Versus QALYs

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Targeted Oral Anti-Cancer Drugs: A Systematic Review