Nasty or nice? A perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2009, Pages

  Drummond, Michael ^a   Sorenson, Corinna ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health technology assessment; HTA; National Institute for Clinical Excellence; NICE; United Kingdom

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 66549098626     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00552.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Pole JD. Mass radiography: a cost/benefit appraisal. Oxford: Problems and Progress in Medical Care - Essays on Current Research, Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1971.
2. Buxton M, Acheson R, Caine N, et al. Costs and Benefits of the Heart Transplant Programme at Harefield and Papworth Hospitals. London : Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1985.
3. Mason A, Smith PC. Health Basket Project Benefit Report: England. Dublin : European Health Management Association, 2005.
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Department of Health Selection Criteria. London : NICE, 2006a.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Single Technology Assessment (STA) Process. London : NICE, 2006b.
6. Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: the Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared. Health Policy 2006 76 : 134 43.
7. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). A Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London : NICE, 2008.
8. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell LB, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York : Oxford University Press, 1996.
9. Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the PBAC (Version 4.0). Canberra : Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2006.
10. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. Ottawa : CADTH, 2006.
11. Barbieri M, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. Who does the numbers? The role of independent technology assessment to inform health systems' decision making about the funding of health technologies. Paper presented at the Health Economists' Study Group Meeting, Birmingham, 2007.
12. Buxton M. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 : 1133 42.
13. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. First Report of Session 2007-2008, vol. 1. HC 27-1. London : The Stationery Office, 2008.
14. Office of Fair Trading: The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: An OFT Market Study. London : OFT, 2007.
15. Claxton K. OFT, VBP; QED Health Econ 2007 16 : 545 58.
16. Towse A. If it ain't broke, don't price fix it: the OFT and the PPRS. Health Econ 2007 16 : 653 5.
17. Barbieri M, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessments to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health 2009 12 : 193 201.
18. Mason A, Drummond MF, Towse A. Economic Post-Launch Studies: Matching the Desirable with the Feasible. London : Office of Health Economics, 2006.
19. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005.
20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Social Value Judgements. London : NICE, 2005.
21. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004 13 : 437 52.
22. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute of Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004 329 : 224 7.
23. Culyer AJ, McCabe C, Briggs A, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Polit Policy Law 2007 12 : 56 8.
24. Birch S, Gafni A. Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 : 1121 31.
25. Martin S, Rice N, Smith PC. The Link Between Health Care Spending and Health Outcomes: Evidence from English Programme Budgeting Data. York : CHE Research Paper 24, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2007.
26. Donaldson C, Mason H, Shackley P. Contingent valuation in health care. In : Jones A, ed. Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006.
27. Drummond MF, Wilson D, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23 : 36 42. (Pubitemid 46648298)
28. McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ 2005 331 : 1016 19.
29. Nation Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Appraising Orphan Drugs. London : NICE, 2006.
30. 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. doi:10.1136/bmj. 329.7473.999.
31. Audit Commission. Managing the Financial Implications of NICE Guidance. London : Audit Commission, 2005.