Emma Cowles1, Grace Marsden2, Amanda Cole2, Nancy Devlin2. 1. Office of Health Economics, 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK. emma.brockis@btinternet.com. 2. Office of Health Economics, 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) exert an influence on the allocation of resources within 'fixed' National Health Service budgets. Yet guidance for different types of health interventions is handled via different 'programmes' within NICE, which follow different methods and processes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to identify differences in the processes and methods of NICE health technology assessment programmes and to explore how these could impact on allocative efficiency within the National Health Service. METHODS: Data were extracted from the NICE technology appraisal programme, medical technologies guidance, diagnostic assessment programme, highly specialised technologies programme, and clinical guidelines process and methods manuals to undertake a systematic comparison. Five qualitative interviews were carried out with NICE members of staff and committee members to explore the reasons for the differences found. RESULTS: The main differences identified were in the required evidence review period, or lack thereof, mandatory funding status, the provision of a reference case for economic evaluation, the requirement for and the type of economic analysis undertaken, and the decision making criteria used for appraisal. CONCLUSION: Many of the differences found can be justified on grounds of practicality and relevance to the health technologies under assessment. Nevertheless, from a strict utilitarian view, there are several potential areas of inefficiency that could lead to the misallocation of resources within the National Health Service, although some of these might be eliminated or reduced if an egalitarian view is taken. The challenge is determining where society is willing to trade health gains between different people.
BACKGROUND: Decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) exert an influence on the allocation of resources within 'fixed' National Health Service budgets. Yet guidance for different types of health interventions is handled via different 'programmes' within NICE, which follow different methods and processes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to identify differences in the processes and methods of NICE health technology assessment programmes and to explore how these could impact on allocative efficiency within the National Health Service. METHODS: Data were extracted from the NICE technology appraisal programme, medical technologies guidance, diagnostic assessment programme, highly specialised technologies programme, and clinical guidelines process and methods manuals to undertake a systematic comparison. Five qualitative interviews were carried out with NICE members of staff and committee members to explore the reasons for the differences found. RESULTS: The main differences identified were in the required evidence review period, or lack thereof, mandatory funding status, the provision of a reference case for economic evaluation, the requirement for and the type of economic analysis undertaken, and the decision making criteria used for appraisal. CONCLUSION: Many of the differences found can be justified on grounds of practicality and relevance to the health technologies under assessment. Nevertheless, from a strict utilitarian view, there are several potential areas of inefficiency that could lead to the misallocation of resources within the National Health Service, although some of these might be eliminated or reduced if an egalitarian view is taken. The challenge is determining where society is willing to trade health gains between different people.
Authors: James Love-Koh; Alison Peel; Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla; Kate Ennis; Rosemary Lovett; Andrea Manca; Anastasia Chalkidou; Hannah Wood; Matthew Taylor Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.981