This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

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

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Nancy Devlin () (Department of Economics, City University, London)
David Parkin () (Department of Economics, City University, London)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

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. Discrete 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 NICE’s 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.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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://www.city.ac.uk/economics/dps/discussion_papers/0301.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Department of Economics, City University, London in its series City University Economics Discussion Papers with number 03/01.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 33 pages
Date of creation: 09 Jun 2003
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Health Economics, 2004; 13(5): 437-452
Handle: RePEc:cty:dpaper:0301

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Northampton Square, LONDON EC1V 0HB
Web page: http://www.city.ac.uk/economics
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Michael Ben-Gad).

Related research
Keywords:

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.:

  1. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. John Hutton & Alan Maynard, 2000. "A nice challenge for health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 89-93.
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All RePEc services are meant to be be free forever, as they are all run by volunteers.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.