Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis

Contents:

Author Info

  • Nancy Devlin

    (City Health Economics Centre, Department of Economics, City University, UK)

  • David Parkin

    (City Health Economics Centre, Department of Economics, City University, UK)

Abstract

The decisions made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) give rise to two questions: how is cost-effectiveness evidence used to make judgements about the 'value for money' of health technologies? And how are factors other than cost-effectiveness taken into account? The aim of this paper is to explore NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold(s) and the tradeoffs between cost effectiveness and other factors apparent in its decisions. Binary choice analysis is used to reveal the preferences of NICE and to consider the consistency of its decisions. For each decision to accept or reject a technology, explanatory variables include: the cost per life year or per QALY gained; uncertainty regarding cost effectiveness; the net cost to the NHS; the burden of disease; the availability (or not) of alternative treatments; and specific factors indicated by NICE. Results support the broad notion of a threshold, where the probability of rejection increases as the cost per QALY increases. Cost effectiveness, together with uncertainty and the burden of disease, explain NICE decisions better than cost effectiveness alone. The results suggest a threshold somewhat higher than NICEs stated 'range of acceptable cost effectiveness' of £20 000-£30 000 per QALY - although the exact meaning of a 'range' in this context remains unclear. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.864
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 13 (2004)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
Pages: 437-452

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:437-452

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

Related research

Keywords:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. John Hutton & Alan Maynard, 2000. "A nice challenge for health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 89-93.
  2. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:437-452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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.