IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Irish Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: Does it Support Rational Rationing or Might it Lead to Unintended Harm to Ireland’s Health System?


  • James F. O’Mahony

    () (Trinity College Dublin)

  • Diarmuid Coughlan

    (Newcastle University)


Ireland is one of the few countries worldwide to have an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold. In 2012, an agreement between government and the pharmaceutical industry that provided substantial savings on existing medications set the threshold at €45,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This replaced a previously unofficial threshold of €20,000/QALY. According to the agreement, drugs within the threshold will be granted reimbursement, whereas those exceeding it may still be approved following further negotiation. A number of drugs far exceeding the threshold have been approved recently. The agreement only applies to pharmaceuticals. There are four reasons for concern regarding Ireland’s threshold. The absence of an explicit threshold for non-drug interventions leaves it unclear if there is parity in willingness to pay across all interventions. As the threshold resembles a price floor rather than a ceiling, in principle it only offers a weak barrier to cost-ineffective interventions. It has no empirical basis. Finally, it is probably too high given recent estimates of a threshold for the UK based on the cost effectiveness of services forgone of approximately £13,000/QALY. An excessive threshold risks causing the Irish health system unintended harm. The lack of an empirically informed threshold means the policy recommendations of cost-effectiveness analysis cannot be considered as fully evidence-based rational rationing. Policy makers should consider these issues and recent Irish legislation that defined cost effectiveness in terms of the opportunity cost of services forgone when choosing what threshold to apply once the current industry agreement expires at the end of 2015.

Suggested Citation

  • James F. O’Mahony & Diarmuid Coughlan, 2016. "The Irish Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: Does it Support Rational Rationing or Might it Lead to Unintended Harm to Ireland’s Health System?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 5-11, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-015-0336-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0336-1

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Brick, Aoife & Gorecki, Paul K. & Nolan, Anne, 2013. "Ireland: Pharmaceutical Prices, Prescribing Practices and Usage of Generics in a Comparative Context," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS32, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Alan Haycox, 2013. "How Much Should the NHS Pay for a QALY?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 357-359, May.
    4. Warren G. Linley & Dyfrig A. Hughes, 2013. "Societal Views On Nice, Cancer Drugs Fund And Value‐Based Pricing Criteria For Prioritising Medicines: A Cross‐Sectional Survey Of 4118 Adults In Great Britain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 948-964, August.
    5. Barnsley, P. & Towse, A. & Karlsberg Schaffer, S. & Sussex, J., 2013. "Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold," Occasional Papers 000106, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Gorecki, Paul, 2017. "The savings from the 2016-2020 Framework Agreement on the Supply and Pricing of Medicines in Ireland: which counterfactual?," MPRA Paper 79481, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-015-0336-1. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.