Advanced Search

An Analysis of NICE's 'Restricted' (or 'Optimized') Decisions

Contents:

Author Info

  • Phill ONeill

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK)

  • Nancy J. Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK)

Abstract

Background: A common way of describing UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decisions is to distinguish between cases where NICE recommended use of a healthcare technology by all relevant patients ('yes'); those where it did not recommend use ('no'); and those where its decisions are a mixture of 'yes' to some patient subgroups, and 'no' to others. Over half of NICE's decisions are of this mixed type, which involve restricting (or 'optimizing') patient use in some way. Objective: To report an attempt to develop a robust and defensible means of measuring and describing the degree of patient access in mixed NICE decisions. Methods: A list of mixed decisions made from 2006 to the end of 2009 was identified using HTAinSite™. The following calculation was used: M - (p/P) × 100, where M is a measure of the level of patient access (0 - no access, 100 - full access), P is the set of patients considered in the guidance as Potential candidates for treatment (given the licensed use and the scope of NICE's appraisal), and p is a subset of those patients, for whom NICE did recommend treatment. M can be estimated either for a specific product or for a group of technologies (Multiple Technology Appraisals). Both product-specific and overall M were estimated, using estimates of p obtained from NICE costing templates. These data are subject to some important limitations, so the results should be regarded as illustrative. Results: Of the 69 medicines that have received a mixed decision since January 2006, 34 included details that allowed the estimation of M. Of these 34 decisions, 24 (71%) had a product-specific M ≤50, 16 (47%) M ≤25 and 11 (32%) M ≤10. That is, in just under three-quarters of the mixed decisions for which P and p were available, NICE recommended use for less than half of patients for whom the medicine is licensed, and in nearly one-third of these sorts of decisions, NICE recommended use in ≤10% of potential patients. The estimates of M for groups of technologies provide a slightly different picture: for example, grouped M was ≤10 in <20% of decisions. Conclusions: The measure of patient access, M, proposed here has the potential to provide a more informative way of reporting all NICE decisions, particularly 'restricted' (or 'optimized') decisions.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/pdfhandler.00019053-201028110-00003.pdf
Download Restriction: Pay per view
File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/fulltext.00019053-201028110-00003.htm
Download Restriction: Pay per view

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

Volume (Year): 28 (2010)
Issue (Month): 11 ()
Pages: 987-993
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:28:y:2010:i:11:p:987-993

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/

For corrections or technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dave Dustin).

Related research

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Decision-making; Formularies; Health-policy.;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:28:y:2010:i:11:p:987-993

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.