Literature DB >> 15982779

Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared.

John Cairns1.   

Abstract

There is wide acceptance that cost-effectiveness is a relevant consideration when deciding which treatments to make available in publicly funded health services. An unresolved issue concerns the timing and the extent of such evaluations. The United Kingdom provides examples of two distinct approaches. The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) provides guidance to the NHS in Scotland based on a rapid early review of the evidence. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provides guidance to the NHS in England and Wales based on a later, more extensive review of the evidence. This paper explores how the difference in approach affects the role of the pharmaceutical industry, clinical experts and other stakeholders. It compares the guidance produced when both bodies have evaluated the same medicines. It addresses the general question of when to assess the cost-effectiveness of medicines. It concludes that there are important differences between the approaches of SMC and NICE, relating primarily to the timing of the review of evidence on clinical and cost-effectiveness. The difference in timing means that the activities of the two bodies are to a large extent complementary.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15982779     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  13 in total

1.  Scotland v England deal on prescribed drugs: Scottish Medicines Consortium responds.

Authors:  David J Webb; Kenneth R Paterson; Angela Timoney; Andrew Walker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-11-18

Review 2.  Pharmacoeconomics: friend or foe?

Authors:  M Drummond
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 3.  Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK.

Authors:  Martin J Buxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  The impact of prognosis without treatment on doctors' and patients' resource allocation decisions and its relevance to new drug recommendation processes.

Authors:  D Ross Camidge; James J Oliver; Carolyn Skinner; Ben Attwood; Fiona Nussey; Duncan Jodrell; David J Webb
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 5.  Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Aaron N Winn; Donatus U Ekwueme; Gery P Guy; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  A comparative analysis of two contrasting European approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France.

Authors:  Michael Drummond; Gerard de Pouvourville; Elizabeth Jones; Jennifer Haig; Grece Saba; Hélène Cawston
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies: issues and challenges ahead.

Authors:  James M Mason; Anne R Mason
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology.

Authors:  Dan Greenberg; Craig Earle; Chi-Hui Fang; Adi Eldar-Lissai; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Cost effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir tablets compared with atazanavir plus ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced patients in the UK, France, Italy and Spain.

Authors:  Kit N Simpson; Walter J Jones; Rukmini Rajagopalan; Birgitta Dietz
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 10.  Economic analysis of the health impacts of housing improvement studies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elisabeth Fenwick; Catriona Macdonald; Hilary Thomson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.