Balancing Cost-Effectiveness with other Values: Experiences of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)

Introduction

This paper gives a brief overview of the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence (NICE), a body that issues guidance and advice to the UK National Health Service on the appropriateness of selected health care technologies, procedures, and care pathways. Evidence supporting the contention that cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a key driver of the Institute's decisions on technology coverage is then presented, with discussion of the equity and social value principles underpinning NICE decisions.

References

• 1 Birch S, Gafni A. Economists’ dream or nightmare? Maximizing health gains from available resources using the NICE guidelines Health Economics.  Policy and Law. 2007;  2 ((2)) 193-202
• 2 Bryan S. Darzi on NICE: The case for clinician engagement in HTA.  Health Economics. 2008;  17 ((12)) 1323-1327
• 3 Bryan S, Williams I, MacIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: A qualitative investigation of the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in NICE technology appraisals.  Health Economics. 2007;  16 ((2)) 179-193
• 4 Clark W, Jobanputra P, Barton P. et al . The clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: a systematic review and economic analysis.  Health Technology Assessment. 2004;  8 ((18))
• 5 Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly. OUP: New York 2002
• 6 Gold M, Bryan S. A response to Birch and Gafni: some reasons to be cheerful about NICE.  Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2007;  2 ((2)) 209-216
• 7 House of Commons Health Committee . National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence (HC 27-I, 2008). 2008; 
• 8 Martin S, Rice N, Smith PC. The link between health care spending and health outcomes for the new English Primary Care Trusts: Centre for Health Economics. University of York. CHE Research Paper 2008: 42
• 9 NICE . Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2008;  http://(www.nice.org.uk/media/b52/a7/tamethodsguideupdatedjune2008.pdf)
• 10 NICE . Anakinra for rheumatoid arthritis. Technology Appraisal 72. http://(www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ta072guidance.pdf) 2003; 
• 11 NICE . Social Value Judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance. , 2nd edition 2007;  http://(www.nice.org.uk/media/c18/30/svj2publication2008.pdf)
• 12 Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children.  Health Economics. 2003;  12 ((8)) 697-702
• 13 Secretary of State for Health . High Quality Care for All (Cm 7432, 2008). 2008; 
• 14 Williams I, Bryan S. Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England.  Social Science & Medicine. 2007;  65 2116-2129

Correspondence