Wouldn’t it be NICE to consider patients’ views when rationing health care?

BMJ

Volumn 338, Issue , 2009, Pages

  Speight, Jane ^a   Reaney, Matt ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923199478     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b85     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 733–744.
2. White C. NICE to confer on taking greater account of patients' views. BMJ 2008; 337: a2211.
3. Matza LS, Boye KS, Yurgin N, Brewster-Jordan J, Mannix S, Shorr JM, et al. Utilities and disutilities for type 2 diabetes treatment-related attributes. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 1251–1265.
4. US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 79.
5. EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL: a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.
6. European Medicines Agency (EMEA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of heath-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. EMEA, 2005. www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/13939104en.pdf.
7. Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b85