The role of NICE technology appraisal in NHS rationing

British Medical Bulletin

Volumn 81-82, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 51-64

  Walker, Simon ^a   Palmer, Stephen ^a   Sculpher, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Economic evaluation; NICE; Priority setting; Rationing; Technology appraisal

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE CENTER; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GOVERNMENT; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 37549020945     PISSN: 00071420     EISSN: 14718391     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldm007     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Department of Health (1996). Research and Development: Towards and Evidence Based Health Service. London: HMSO.
2. Department of Health (1997). The New NHS: Modern and Dependable. London: HMSO.
3. Department of Health (1998). A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS. London: NHS Executive.
4. Ferner R, McDowell S (2006) How NICE may be outflanked. BMJ, 332, 1268-1271.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2004). Guide to The Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE.
6. Raftery J (2001) NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ, 323, 1300-1303.
7. NICE, Technology Appraisal Committee. Retrieved November 1, 2006 from http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=tac.
8. NICE (2000) Summary of the Appeals Process. London: NICE.
9. Kind P (2005) Valuing health outcomes: ten questions for the insomniac health economist. In Smith P et al. (eds) Health Policy and Economics: Opportunities and Challenges. Maidenhead and Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
10. Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A et al. (2007) Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy, 12, 56-58
11. Mulrow C (1994) Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ, 309, 597-599.
12. Ades A, Sculpher M, Sutton A et al. (2006) Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics, 24, 1-19.
13. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M (2002) A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet, 360, 711-715.
14. Raftery J (2006) Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005. BMJ, 332, 1266-1268.
15. Dakin H, Devlin N, Odeyimi I (2006) "Yes", "No" or "Yes,but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy, 77, 352-367.
16. Devlin N, Parkin D (2004) Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ, 13, 437-452.
17. Taylor R, Drummond M, Salkeld G, Sullivan S (2004) Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ, 329, 972-975.
18. Birch S, Gafni A (2006) Decision rules in economic evaluation. In Jones A (ed.) The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19. NICE (2006) Introduction of new disinvestment programmes. Retrieved January 16, 2007 from http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=358256.
20. NICE (2006) Public Health Programmes and Interventions. London: NICE.
21. Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A (2001) Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ, 323, 743-745.
22. CMS Office of Public Affairs (2005) Medicare announces draft guidance for national coverage determinations with evidence development. http://new.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=1423. Accessed Novemer 1, 2006.
23. House of Commons Health Committee (2005) The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Fourth Report of Session 2004-2005. London: The Stationary Office, 109.
24. Miners A, Garau M, Fidan D, Fischer A (2005) Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ, 330, 65.
25. Bell C, Urbach D, Ray J et al. (2006) Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ, 332, 699-703.
26. Eisai (2006). Final Appeal Document. Retrieved January 16, 2006 from http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=342610.
27. Health and Social Campaigners' News International (2005). Funding of Health Campaigners: A Global Review of 125 Groups. Health and Social Campaigners' News International. Issue 15: 6-27
28. Hill S, Garattini S, Loenhout Jv, O'Brien B, Joncheere Kd (2003) Technology Appraisal Programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence: A Review by WHO. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation.
29. McMahon M, Morgan S, Mitton C (2006) The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada? Health Policy 77, 339-351.