Some Inconsistencies in NICE’s Consideration of Social Values

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 32, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1043-1053

  Paulden, Mike ^a   O’Mahony, James F ^b   Culyer, Anthony J ^c,d   McCabe, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BUDGET; CONSULTATION; COST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; PROCEDURES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84910109020     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0204-4     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Methods of technology appraisal consultation. 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/InConsultation/GID-INCONSULTATION/html/p/methods-of-technology-appraisal-consultation?id=2cbiqn4bjozoxf4h6trcemndea.
2. Secretary of State for Health. The Government’s Response to the Health Select Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2012–2013 on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. London; 2013. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/164232/The_Government_s_Response.pdf.
3. Department of Health. Value-based pricing—terms of reference. London; 2013. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/proxy/?sourceUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nice.org.uk%2Faboutnice%2Fhowwework%2Fdevnicetech%2FDevelopmentWorkForValueBasedPricing.jsp%3Fdomedia%3D1%26mid%3D9A46903F-A8A3-2090-57684CA0D69C6E1D.
4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Consultation paper—value based assessment of health technologies. London; 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/InConsultation/GID-INCONSULTATION/html/p/methods-of-technology-appraisal-consultation?id=2cbiqn4bjozoxf4h6trcemndea.
5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. London; 2009. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/resources/appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2.
6. Stolk EA, Van Donselaar G, Brouwer WBF, Busschbach JJV. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1097–107.
7. Office for Health Economics (OHE). Office for Health Economics note on proportional versus absolute shortfall. London; 2014. Available from: http://www.gserve.nice.org.uk/media/FE2/C7/OHE_Note_on_proportional_versus_absolute_shortfall.pdf.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Discounting of health benefits in special circumstances. London; 2011. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta235/resources/osteosarcoma-mifamurtide-discounting-of-health-benefits-in-special-circumstances2.
9. O’Mahony JF, Paulden M. NICE’s selective application of differential discounting: ambiguous, inconsistent, and unjustified. Value Health. 2013;2–4. Available from: http://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015%2813%2900069-7/abstract.
10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
11. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:733–44. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18767894.
12. Harris J. Nice and not so nice. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:685–8. Available from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/12/685.full.
13. Paulden M, Culyer AJ. Does cost-effectiveness analysis discriminate against patients with short life expectancy? Matters of logic and matters of context. Toronto: THETA Collaborative, University of Toronto; 2010. Working Paper 1. Available from: http://theta.utoronto.ca/Working_Papers.
14. Seshamani M, Gray AM. A longitudinal study of the effects of age and time to death on hospital costs. J Health Econ. 2004;23:217–35.
15. Kasteridis P, Street A, Dolman M, Gallier L, Hudson K, Martin J, et al. The importance of multimorbidity in explaining utilisation and costs across health and social care settings: evidence from south Somerset’s symphony project. Heslington: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2014. CHE Research Paper 96. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP96_multimorbidity_utilisation_costs_health_social%20care.pdf.
16. Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer AJ. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011;20:2–15. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.1612/full.
17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London; 2013. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG9/chapter/Foreword.
18. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, Akehurst R, et al. Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE—stepping back to sort out a confusion. Health Econ. 2006;15:1–4. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.1081/abstract.
19. Raftery J. Value based pricing: can it work? BMJ. 2013;5941:f5941.
20. Department of Health. The NHS constitution. London; 2013. Available from: http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Documents/2013/the-nhs-constitution-for-england-2013.pdf.
21. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. Heslington: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2013. CHE Research Paper 81. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP81_methods_estimation_NICE_costeffectiveness_threshold_%28Nov2013%29.pdf.
22. Paulden M, Claxton K. Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health. Health Econ. 2009;21:612–618. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.1730/full.
23. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.