Literature DB >> 16365910

Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE - stepping back to sort out a confusion.

Karl Claxton1, Mark Sculpher, Anthony Culyer, Chris McCabe, Andrew Briggs, Ron Akehurst, Martin Buxton, John Brazier.   

Abstract

Brouwer and colleagues [1] argue that the reasons for specifying an equal discount rate for health outcomes and costs in the recent guidance on methods of technology appraisal issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) [2] is both opaque and wrong. They argue that a lower rate should apply to health outcomes like QALYs. It is also claimed that the guidance on discounting represents a step backwards, that is both inconsistent with current theoretical insights and will prejudice the outcome of cost-effectiveness studies of preventive interventions.The reasoning behind the use of equal discount rates for costs and health outcomes is indeed not well developed in the published guidance. Nor does it reflect the debate that underpinned the guidance. We therefore welcome the opportunity to explain more completely the rationale in the minds of the principal authors of the current guidance. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16365910     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  25 in total

1.  Points to consider in assessing and appraising predictive genetic tests.

Authors:  Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Jürgen John; Helena Kääriäinen; Alastair Kent; Ulf Kristofferson; Jörg Schmidtke
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2010-10-16

2.  Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research: the relative unimportance of mere preferences, the central importance of context.

Authors:  Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Towards a social discount rate for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Germany: an exploratory analysis.

Authors:  Mareike Schad; Jürgen John
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-19

Review 4.  Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers.

Authors:  Stephen Birch; Amiram Gafni
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means.

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Karl Claxton; Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Some inconsistencies in NICE's consideration of social values.

Authors:  Mike Paulden; James F O'Mahony; Anthony J Culyer; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Differential time preferences for money and quality of life.

Authors:  M B Y Parouty; H H Le; D Krooshof; M J Postma
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Discounting the Recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  Mike Paulden; James F O'Mahony; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Neuropad device as a screening tool for early diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Authors:  B Rodríguez-Sánchez; L M Peña-Longobardo; A J Sinclair
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-11-12

10.  Research priorities for economic analyses of prevention: current issues and future directions.

Authors:  D Max Crowley; Laura Griner Hill; Margaret R Kuklinski; Damon E Jones
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2014-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.