Can NICE be nicer? in a world of budget constraints there are no easy solutions

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 634-636

  Drummond, Michael ^a   Sorenson, Corinna ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Access to health care; Health care decision makers; Resource use; UK NHS

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG;

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 67649998758     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00540.x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Carroll S. Is there any nicer than NICE? A question the Conservative Shadow Health Team is right to ask. Value Health in press.
2. Carlyle T. Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Fraser's Magazine for Town and Country 1849 (Vol. XL, February 1849).
3. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, et al. Key principles for improved conduct of health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 24 : 244 58.
4. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. London : The Stationery Office Limited, 2008a.
5. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: NICE Response to the Committee's First Report of Session 2007-2008. London : The Stationary Office Limited, 2008b.
6. Haycox A. Does NICE blight exist, and if so, why? Pharmacoeconomics 2008 26 : 987 9.
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Schizophrenia: Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Adults in Primary and Secondary Care (Update). London : NICE, 2009.
8. Barham L. Single technology appraisals by NICE: are they delivering faster guidance to the NHS? Pharmacoeconomics 2008 26 : 1037 43.
9. Drummond MF, Sorenson C. Nasty or NICE? A perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value Health in press.
10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising Life-Extending, End of Life Treatments. London : NICE, 2008. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk [Accessed January 20, 2009 January 20, 2009 MF, Wilson D, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007 23 : 36 42.
11. Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, et al. Weighting and valuing quality adjusted life years: preliminary results from the social value of a QALY project. 2008. Available from: http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/ methodology/docs/publications/JH12-Donaldson-Social-Value-of-QALY-July2008.pdf [Accessed January 20, 2009 P, Tsuchiya A, Armitage C, et al. What is the value to society of a QALY? A protocol to determine the relative value of a QALY according to various health and non-health characteristics. NICE and NCCRM Tender. Sheffield : Sheffield Health Economics Group, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 2005.
12. Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ. Effectiveness, efficiency and NICE: a NICE start but evidence costs money. BMJ 2001 322 : 943 44.