The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means
AbstractThe National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been using a cost-effectiveness threshold range between Lstg 20_000 and Lstg 30_000 for over 7 years. What the cost-effectiveness threshold represents, what the appropriate level is for NICE to use, and what the other factors are that NICE should consider have all been the subject of much discussion. In this article, we briefly review these questions, provide a critical assessment of NICE's utilization of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold to inform its guidance, and suggest ways in which NICE's utilization of the ICER threshold could be developed to promote the efficient use of health service resources. We conclude that it is feasible and probably desirable to operate an explicit single threshold rather than the current range; the threshold should be seen as a threshold at which `other' criteria beyond the ICER itself are taken into account; interventions with a large budgetary impact may need to be subject to a lower threshold as they are likely to displace more than the marginal activities; reimbursement at the threshold transfers the full value of an innovation to the manufacturer. Positive decisions above the threshold on the grounds of innovation reduce population health; the value of the threshold should be reconsidered regularly to ensure that it captures the impact of changes in efficiency and budget over time; the use of equity weights to sustain a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold requires knowledge of the equity characteristics of those patients who bear the opportunity cost. Given the barriers to obtaining this knowledge and knowledge about the characteristics of typical beneficiaries of UK NHS care, caution is warranted before accepting claims from special pleaders; uncertainty in the evidence base should not be used to justify a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold. The development of a programme of disinvestment guidance would enable NICE and the NHS to be more confident that the net health benefit of the Technology Appraisal Programme is positive. DOI: 10.2165/0019053-200826090-00004
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Volume (Year): 26 (2008)
Issue (Month): 9 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/
Cost-effectiveness; Decision-making; Formularies; Health-policy;
Other versions of this item:
- McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 1992. "Cost effectiveness/utility analyses : Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 279-296, October.
- Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & Louise Longworth & Laura Bojke & Susan Griffin & Claire McKenna & Marta Soares & Eldon Spackman & Jihee Youn, 2011. "Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies," Working Papers 069cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
- Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
- Mike Paulden & Karl Claxton, 2009. "Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health," Working Papers 053cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
- J. Jaime Caro & Erik Nord & Uwe Siebert & Alistair McGuire & Maurice McGregor & David Henry & Gérard de Pouvourville & Vincenzo Atella & Peter Kolominsky-Rabas, 2010. "The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1117-1127.
- Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2010. "Sins of omission and obfuscation: IQWIG's guidelines on economic evaluation methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1132-1136.
- Refoios Camejo, Rodrigo & McGrath, Clare & Herings, Ron, 2011. "A dynamic perspective on pharmaceutical competition, drug development and cost effectiveness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 18-24, April.
- Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.
- Stefano Capri & Rosella Levaggi, 2011. "Shifting the risk in pricing and reimbursement schemes? A model of risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs," DEP - series of economic working papers 2/2011, University of Genoa, Research Doctorate in Public Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.