IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i2d10.1007_s40273-020-00990-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NICE’s Discounting Review: Clear Thinking on Rational Revision Meets Obstacle of Industrial Interests

Author

Listed:
  • James F. O’Mahony

    (Trinity College Dublin)

  • Mike Paulden

    (University of Alberta)

  • Chris McCabe

    (Institute of Health Economics
    University of Alberta)

Abstract

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently published a review of discounting practice and theory as part of a consultation on its current methods guidelines. The review examines the case for revision or retention of current methods. The changes considered include eliminating favourable rates in certain special cases and the reduction of the base-case rate for costs and health effects from 3.5 to 1.5%. The review also notes the potential need to reduce the cost-effectiveness threshold to accommodate a discount rate reduction, explaining that an agreement between the UK government and the pharmaceutical industry proscribes changing NICE’s threshold range until the end of 2023. We believe NICE should be commended for a useful overview of the existing literature and relevant issues. We firmly endorse NICE’s view that favourable discount rates are not a good way to apply a preference for certain interventions. Similarly, we support the option of reducing the discount rate to 1.5%, which better accords with real government borrowing costs. We suggest further work to clarify the appropriate theoretical basis for the NICE’s social discount rate and the sensitivity of the threshold to changes in discounting. The prospects of a necessary discount rate reduction appear to depend on whether a threshold reduction can be achieved within NICE’s current range or if the range itself must be revised downwards. NICE has usefully informed the debate around discount rates. Ultimately, the path to a methodologically consistent and evidence-based revision of discounting depends on whether NICE needs to adjust the threshold too and if it is free to do so.

Suggested Citation

  • James F. O’Mahony & Mike Paulden & Chris McCabe, 2021. "NICE’s Discounting Review: Clear Thinking on Rational Revision Meets Obstacle of Industrial Interests," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 139-146, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00990-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00990-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00990-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-020-00990-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mike Paulden & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(5), pages 612-618, May.
    3. Karl Claxton & Steve Martin & Marta Soares & Nigel Rice & Eldon Spackman & Sebastian Hinde & Nancy Devlin & Peter C Smith & Mark Sculpher, 2013. "Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold," Working Papers 081cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 15th March 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-03-15 12:00:14

    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. 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.
    2. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Mike Paulden & James O’Mahony & Anthony Culyer & Christopher McCabe, 2014. "Some Inconsistencies in NICE’s Consideration of Social Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(11), pages 1043-1053, November.
    4. Karlsberg Schaffer, Sarah & Sussex, Jon & Devlin, Nancy & Walker, Andrew, 2015. "Local health care expenditure plans and their opportunity costs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(9), pages 1237-1244.
    5. Karlsberg Schaffer, S. & Sussex, J. & Hughes, D. & Devlin, N., 2014. "Opportunity Costs of Implementing NICE Decisions in NHS Wales," Research Papers 000517, Office of Health Economics.
    6. Karlsberg Schaffer, S. & Sussex, J. & Devlin, N. & Walker, A., 2013. "Searching for Cost-effectiveness Thresholds in NHS Scotland," Research Papers 000078, Office of Health Economics.
    7. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Eldon Spackman & Stewart Richmond & Mark Sculpher & Martin Bland & Stephen Brealey & Rhian Gabe & Ann Hopton & Ada Keding & Harriet Lansdown & Sara Perren & David Torgerson & Ian Watt & Hugh MacPherso, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Acupuncture, Counselling and Usual Care in Treating Patients with Depression: The Results of the ACUDep Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Valentina Cambiano & Andrew Phillips & Mark J Sculpher, 2018. "Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies—The example of viral load informed differentiated care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Vincent T Janmaat & Marco J Bruno & Suzanne Polinder & Sylvie Lorenzen & Florian Lordick & Maikel P Peppelenbosch & Manon C W Spaander, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-10, April.
    11. Aidan Hollis, 2016. "Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 971-980, October.
    12. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    13. Ken Willis & Bob Crabtree & Liesl M. Osman & Kirsty Cathrine, 2016. "Green space and health benefits: a QALY and CEA of a mental health programme," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 163-180, July.
    14. Laura Levaggi & Rosella Levaggi, 2017. "Rationing in health care provision: a welfare approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 235-249, June.
    15. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    16. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    17. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2016. "Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(1), pages 8-19, January.
    18. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    19. B. Rodríguez-Sánchez & L. M. Peña-Longobardo & A. J. Sinclair, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Neuropad device as a screening tool for early diabetic peripheral neuropathy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 335-349, April.
    20. Martina Garau & Grace Hampson & Nancy Devlin & Nicola Amedeo Mazzanti & Antonio Profico, 2018. "Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Approach to Elicit Stakeholders’ Preferences in Italy: The Case of Obinutuzumab for Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 153-163, June.

    More about this item

    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:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00990-8. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.