Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service

JAMA

Volumn 294, Issue 20, 2005, Pages 2618-2622

  Pearson, Steven D ^a,b,d   Rawlins, Michael D ^a,c  

^a National Institute for Clinical Excellence   (United Kingdom)

^b HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE   (United States)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MONEY; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 28144444941     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.20.2618     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Rawlins M. In pursuit of quality: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 1999;353:1079-1082.
2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. A Guide to NICE. Available at: http://www.nice.orguk/page.aspx?o=250198. Accessed October 17, 2005.
3. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329:224-229.
4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/RA-PDF.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2005.
5. Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ. 2001;323:743-745.
6. Department of Health. A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS. London, England: Dept of Health; 1998.
7. Milburn A. A time for change in the British NHS: an interview with Alan Milburn. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21:129-135.
8. Royal College of Physicians. Setting Priorities in the NHS: A Framework for Decision Making. London, England: Royal College of Physicians; 1995.
9. Klein R. Puzzling out priorities. BMJ. 1998;317:959-960.
10. Statutory instrument 1999 No. 220. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Establishment and Constitution) Order.
11. Maynard A, Bloor K, Freemantle N. Challenges for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. BMJ. 2004;329:227-229.
12. Gafni A, Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21:149-157.
13. Stevens S. Reform strategies for the English NHS. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:37-44.
14. Schubert F. Health technology assessment: the pharmaceutical industry perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:184-191.
15. Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. BMJ. 2004;329:999-1003.
16. Howard S. Measuring the Impact of NICE Guidance in Selected Disease Areas: NICE Implementation Tracking Project. London, England: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.
17. Brickwood D. Implementation of NICE guidance: an ABPI perspective. 2004. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=203712. Accessed October 17, 2005.
18. The Audit Commission. Managing the financial implications of NICE guidance. 2005. Available at:http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/ national-report.asp?categoryid=&prodid=cc53ddfe-42c8-49c7-bb53- 9f6485262718&fromreportsanddata=national-report&page=index.asp&area= hplink. Accessed October 17, 2005.
19. Congressional Budget Office. Letter to the Honorable Joe Barton. March 4, 2005. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6139&sequence=0. Accessed October 17, 2005.
20. Hlatky MA, Sanders GD, Owens DK. Evidencebased medicine and policy: the case of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:42-51.
21. Eisenberg JM, Zarin D. Health technology assessment in the United States: past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:192-198.
22. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare program renewal and amendment of the charter of the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC). 67 Federal Register 79109 (2002).
23. Gillick MR. Medicare coverage for technological innovations: time for new criteria? N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2199-2203.
24. Tunis SR. Why Medicare has not established criteria for coverage decisions. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2196-2198.
25. Neumann PJ. Why don't Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis? Am J Manag Care. 2004;10:308-312.
26. Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness and evidence evaluation as criteria for coverage policy. Health Aff (Millwood). January-June 2004(suppl Web exclusives): W4-284-296.
27. Pearson SD, Sabin JE, Emanuel EJ. Medical necessity, coverage decisions and medical policy. In: No Margin, No Mission: Healthcare Organizations and the Quest for Ethical Excellence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003:67-95.
28. Bergthold LA, Singer SS, Huang A, Gemperli M, Garber A, Osterhoff R. Using Evidence and Cost in Managed Care Decision-Making. Stanford, Calif: Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University; 2002.
29. Hill S, Garattini S, van Loenhout J, O'Brien BJ, de Joncheere K. Technology Appraisal Programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence: A Review by WHO. 2003. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int /Document/E81254.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2005.