IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v91y2009i3p239-245.html

Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS

Author

Listed:
  • Appleby, John
  • Devlin, Nancy
  • Parkin, David
  • Buxton, Martin
  • Chalkidou, Kalipso

Abstract

Objectives The UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold for deciding whether or not services are to be provided in the National Health Service (NHS), but there is currently little evidence to support the level at which it is set. This study examines whether it is possible to obtain such evidence by examining decision making elsewhere in the NHS. Its objectives are to set out a conceptual model linking NICE decision making based on explicit thresholds with the thresholds implicit in local decision making and to gauge the feasibility of (a) identifying those implicit local cost effectiveness thresholds and (b) using these to gauge the appropriateness of NICE's explicit threshold.Methods Structured interviews with senior staff, together with financial and public health information, from six NHS purchasers and 18 providers. A list of health care services introduced or discontinued in 2006/7 was constructed. Those that were in principle amenable to estimation of a cost-effectiveness ratio were examined.Results It was feasible to identify decisions and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of some. These were not necessarily 'marginal' services. Issues include: services that are dominated (or dominate); decisions about how, rather than what, services should be delivered; the lack of local cost effectiveness evidence; and considerations other than cost-effectiveness.Conclusions A definitive finding about the consistency or otherwise of NICE and NHS cost effectiveness thresholds would require very many decisions to be observed, combined with a detailed understanding of the local decision making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Appleby, John & Devlin, Nancy & Parkin, David & Buxton, Martin & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2009. "Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 239-245, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:91:y:2009:i:3:p:239-245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00291-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    2. Stephen Martin & Nigel Rice & Peter C Smith, 2008. "The link between health care spending and health outcomes for the new English Primary Care Trusts," Working Papers 042cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Alan Williams, 2004. "What Could be Nicer than NICE?," Monograph 000489, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. J. Raftery, 2014. "NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 613-615, July.
    3. Martin Buxton, 2005. "How much are health-care systems prepared to pay to produce a QALY?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 285-287, December.
    4. Georgia Kourlaba & Vassilis Fragoulakis & Nikos Maniadakis, 2012. "Economic Evaluation of Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients without ST-Segment Elevation in Greece," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 261-271, July.
    5. Rita Bastião & Nuno de Sousa Pereira, 2020. "Performance in the Delivery of Primary Health Care Services: A Longitudinal Analysis," CEF.UP Working Papers 2002, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    6. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    7. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    8. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    9. Javad Moradpour & Aidan Hollis, 2021. "The economic theory of cost‐effectiveness thresholds in health: Domestic and international implications," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1139-1151, May.
    10. Gre[ss], Stefan & Niebuhr, Dea & Rothgang, Heinz & Wasem, Jurgen, 2005. "Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care: A comparative perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 78-91, July.
    11. Cairns, John, 2006. "Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 134-143, April.
    12. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    13. Adrian Towse;Paul Barnsley;Sarah Karlsberg-Schaffer;Jon Sussex, 2013. "Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold," Occasional Paper 000106, Office of Health Economics.
    14. repec:ces:ifodic:v:4:y:2006:i:2:p:14567506 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. James Lomas & Stephen Martin & Karl Claxton, 2018. "Estimating the marginal productivity of the English National Health Service from 2003/04 to 2012/13," Working Papers 158cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    16. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    17. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    18. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Real Economics Needs to Reflect Real Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-136, February.
    19. Henderson, John & Janke, Katharina & Propper, Carol, 2007. "Are current levels of air pollution in England too high?: the impact of pollution on population mortality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6205, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    21. Joseph P. Cook & Joseph Golec, 2017. "How excluding some benefits from value assessment of new drugs impacts innovation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1813-1825, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:91:y:2009:i:3:p:239-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.