Literature DB >> 18591289

The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process.

M Schlander1.   

Abstract

Democratic societies find it difficult to reach consensus concerning principles for healthcare distribution in the face of resource constraints. At the same time the need for legitimacy of allocation decisions has been recognised. Against this background, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) aspires to meet the principles of procedural justice, specifically the conditions of accountability for reasonableness as espoused by Daniels and Sabin, that is, publicity, relevance, revisions and appeal, and enforcement. Although NICE has adopted a highly standardised approach and continuously publishes key documents on its website, its technology appraisal programme does not fulfil the publicity condition of accountability for reasonableness. Economic models are not made sufficiently transparent to enable public scrutiny, and decision criteria other than cost-effectiveness remain enigmatic. NICE's reliance on cost-utility analysis and "plausible" cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) benchmarks further raises serious issues with regard to the relevance condition of accountability for reasonableness. This is illustrated by counterintuitive cost-per-QALY rankings that are difficult to justify using reflective equilibrium methods, and by the current debate surrounding expensive therapies for rare diseases ("orphan" treatments). In addition, an excessive focus on QALYs may stand in the way of exploiting the best available effectiveness evidence. The NICE mechanism for revision and appeals is also more restrictive than provided in accountability for reasonableness. As to the enforcement condition, no effective quality assurance processes are in place for technology assessments, and implementation of guidance remains imperfect. NICE, despite impressive efforts, appears to have a long way to go before meeting the conditions of accountability for reasonableness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18591289     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2007.021683

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  13 in total

1.  Evaluation of benefit-risk.

Authors:  Silvio Garattini
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  The importance of being NICE.

Authors:  Annette Rid; Peter Littlejohns; James Wilson; Benedict Rumbold; Katharina Kieslich; Albert Weale
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa.

Authors:  Jacqui Miot; Monika Wagner; Hanane Khoury; Donna Rindress; Mireille M Goetghebeur
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2012-02-29

Review 4.  Public and patient involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Authors:  Leela Barham
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients.

Authors:  Mireille M Goetghebeur; Monika Wagner; Hanane Khoury; Donna Rindress; Jean-Pierre Grégoire; Cheri Deal
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2010-04-08

Review 6.  Unintended effects of orphan product designation for rare neurological diseases.

Authors:  Sinéad M Murphy; Araya Puwanant; Robert C Griggs
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 10.422

Review 7.  A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.

Authors:  Bettina M Zimmermann; Johanna Eichinger; Matthias R Baumgartner
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.123

8.  From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking.

Authors:  Lalla Aïda Guindo; Monika Wagner; Rob Baltussen; Donna Rindress; Janine van Til; Paul Kind; Mireille M Goetghebeur
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2012-07-18

9.  Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada.

Authors:  Michèle Tony; Monika Wagner; Hanane Khoury; Donna Rindress; Tina Papastavros; Paul Oh; Mireille M Goetghebeur
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 10.  Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.

Authors:  Mireille M Goetghebeur; Monika Wagner; Hanane Khoury; Randy J Levitt; Lonny J Erickson; Donna Rindress
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-12-22       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.