Literature DB >> 18767894

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

Christopher McCabe1, Karl Claxton, Anthony J Culyer.   

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been using a cost-effectiveness threshold range between 20,000 pound sterling and 30,000 pound sterling for over 7 years. What the cost-effectiveness threshold represents, what the appropriate level is for NICE to use, and what the other factors are that NICE should consider have all been the subject of much discussion. In this article, we briefly review these questions, provide a critical assessment of NICE's utilization of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold to inform its guidance, and suggest ways in which NICE's utilization of the ICER threshold could be developed to promote the efficient use of health service resources. We conclude that it is feasible and probably desirable to operate an explicit single threshold rather than the current range; the threshold should be seen as a threshold at which 'other' criteria beyond the ICER itself are taken into account; interventions with a large budgetary impact may need to be subject to a lower threshold as they are likely to displace more than the marginal activities; reimbursement at the threshold transfers the full value of an innovation to the manufacturer. Positive decisions above the threshold on the grounds of innovation reduce population health; the value of the threshold should be reconsidered regularly to ensure that it captures the impact of changes in efficiency and budget over time; the use of equity weights to sustain a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold requires knowledge of the equity characteristics of those patients who bear the opportunity cost. Given the barriers to obtaining this knowledge and knowledge about the characteristics of typical beneficiaries of UK NHS care, caution is warranted before accepting claims from special pleaders; uncertainty in the evidence base should not be used to justify a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold. The development of a programme of disinvestment guidance would enable NICE and the NHS to be more confident that the net health benefit of the Technology Appraisal Programme is positive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18767894     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  13 in total

1.  A nice challenge for health economics.

Authors:  J Hutton; A Maynard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions.

Authors:  P Sendi; A Gafni; S Birch
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales.

Authors:  Stephen Birch; Amiram Gafni
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis.

Authors:  Nancy Devlin; David Parkin
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments.

Authors:  Michael D Rawlins; Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-24

Review 6.  Cost effectiveness/utility analyses. Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?

Authors:  S Birch; A Gafni
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.883

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

Authors:  Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Anthony Culyer; Chris McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Ron Akehurst; Martin Buxton; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Can we estimate the 'social' value of a QALY? Four core issues to resolve.

Authors:  Richard D Smith; Jeff Richardson
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2005-01-19       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  The bogus conflict between efficiency and vertical equity.

Authors:  Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Authors:  Anthony Culyer; Christopher McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Karl Claxton; Martin Buxton; Ron Akehurst; Mark Sculpher; John Brazier
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2007-01
View more
  193 in total

1.  Real economics needs to reflect real decisions: a response to Johnson.

Authors:  Mark Sculpher; Karl Claxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis and efficient use of the pharmaceutical budget: the key role of clinical pharmacologists.

Authors:  Richard Edlin; Jeff Round; Claire Hulme; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Martin Hoyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  The Irish Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: Does it Support Rational Rationing or Might it Lead to Unintended Harm to Ireland's Health System?

Authors:  James F O'Mahony; Diarmuid Coughlan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Should the Lambda (λ) Remain Silent?

Authors:  Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Jonathan Karnon; Mark Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Investigating the use of NICE guidelines and IAPT services in the treatment of depression.

Authors:  Alex Gyani; Neil Pumphrey; Hannah Parker; Roz Shafran; Suzanna Rose
Journal:  Ment Health Fam Med       Date:  2012-09

7.  Cost effectiveness of the type II Boston keratoprosthesis.

Authors:  J D Ament; T P Stryjewski; S Pujari; S Siddique; G N Papaliodis; J Chodosh; C H Dohlman
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 3.775

8.  Drug therapies for chronic hepatitis C infection: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  William W L Wong; Karen M Lee; Sumeet Singh; George Wells; Jordan J Feld; Murray Krahn
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2017-02-03

9.  Value of information and pricing new healthcare interventions.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan; Simon Eckermann
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Authors:  Belinda L Udeh; Shrif Costandi; Jarrod E Dalton; Raktim Ghosh; Hani Yousef; Nagy Mekhail
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.