The Influence of Cost-Effectiveness and Other Factors on NICE Decisions

Abstract

Background to series CHE Discussion Papers (DPs) began publication in 1983 as a means of making current research material more widely available to health economists and other potential users. So as to speed up the dissemination process, papers were originally published by CHE and distributed by post to a worldwide readership. The CHE Research Paper series takes over that function and provides access to current research output via web-based publication, although hard copy will continue to be available (but subject to charge). Disclaimer Papers published in the CHE Research Paper (RP) series are intended as a contribution to current research. Work and ideas reported in RPs may not always represent the final position and as such may sometimes need to be treated as work in progress. The material and views expressed in RPs are solely those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the collective views of CHE research staff or their research funders. Further copies Copies of this paper are freely available to download from the CHE website www.york.ac.uk/che/publications/ Access to downloaded material is provided on the understanding that it is intended for personal use. Copies of downloaded papers may be distributed to third-parties subject to the proviso that the CHE publication source is properly acknowledged and that such distribution is not subject to any payment.

Cost-effectiveness of superficial femoral artery endovascular interventions in the UK and Germany: a modelling study

“…Cost-effectiveness data have been identified as a key component in NICE decision-making 21. The results presented here suggest that any of the alternatives to PTA are potentially cost-effective options, with the use of biomimetic stents predicted to lead to cost savings.…”

Economic evaluation favours physiotherapy but not corticosteroid injection as a first-line intervention for chronic lateral epicondylalgia: evidence from a randomised clinical trial

“…Placed in perspective, these willingness to pay per QALY values would be unlikely to be rejected by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC)22 or UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE)23 and would be considered highly cost-effective by the WHO (<1×GPD per capita) 24. (Australia's GDP per capita in 2013 was AUD 75 348).…”

“…(Australia's GDP per capita in 2013 was AUD 75 348). In contrast, cost/QALY ratios for corticosteroid injection plus physiotherapy ranged from $A 153 750 to 228 000 (GDP 99 358–147 340), and would be considered not cost-effective, based on WHO (>3×GDP per capita),24 PBAC22 or NICE23 guidelines.…”

Should Countries Set an Explicit Health Benefits Package? The Case of the English National Health Service

“…Although NICE emphasizes that it is not the only relevant criterion, econometric analysis confirms that cost-effectiveness dominates other quantifiable considerations when determining its health technology appraisal decisions [24]. It is noteworthy that policymakers found it necessary to create a “cancer drugs fund” to include high-cost cancer drugs that would not normally have secured approval from NICE on cost-effectiveness grounds [25].…”