IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i3d10.1007_s41669-018-0113-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of Issues Affecting the Efficiency of Decision Making in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process

Author

Listed:
  • M. J. Walton

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York)

  • J. O’Connor

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York)

  • C. Carroll

    (University of Sheffield)

  • L. Claxton

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York)

  • R. Hodgson

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York)

Abstract

Background Escalating demands upon the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE’s) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) programme require a 2.5-times increase upon 2015 capacity by 2020. This additional strain on committee resources threatens to compromise the rigour of the STA process. In 2018, NICE introduced changes to the appraisal process, aiming to expedite final decisions, including consultation opportunities prior to the company’s evidence submission, a ‘Technical Engagement’ stage prior to the first committee meeting, and powers for committee chairs to recommend technologies without a second formal meeting. Objective This study reviews recent STAs and aims to understand why appraisals require multiple meetings, and whether recent reforms can address the underlying issues. Methods NICE STAs published between January 2010 and January 2018 were reviewed, excluding updates or re-considerations. Data on cost, clinical, and decision-making outcomes from 146 appraisals were extracted and analysed thematically. Results Drugs for advanced cancers were least likely to be recommended (28/43 [65.1%] vs 71/74 [96%] for non-cancer) and took longer (2.36 meetings for a final decision vs 1.97 for non-cancer). The academic review increased upon the company’s base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio by a median of 32.7%. Eighty-four technologies (57.5%) received a negative preliminary recommendation, deferring a final decision by an average of 142 days. Of these, 85.1% were not considered cost-effective. Uncertainty in economic (34.3%) and clinical (22.3%) data also prevented a positive decision. The majority (72.6% [61/84]) of negative preliminary decisions were overturned following further committee discussion; important considerations were Patient Access Schemes, decision optimisation, and the Cancer Drugs Fund. Conclusions Value considerations are the primary driver of negative preliminary recommendations. It is unclear if new opportunities for additional interaction between NICE, review groups, and manufacturers will meaningfully improve the efficiency of the appraisal process, particularly given the proportion of technologies requiring further committee discussion for decision optimisation or admission into the CDF.

Suggested Citation

  • M. J. Walton & J. O’Connor & C. Carroll & L. Claxton & R. Hodgson, 2019. "A Review of Issues Affecting the Efficiency of Decision Making in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 403-410, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0113-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0113-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-018-0113-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-018-0113-0?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.

    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. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    2. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Anna Hobbins & Luke Barry & Dan Kelleher & Koonal Shah & Nancy Devlin & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Ciaran O’Neill, 2018. "Utility Values for Health States in Ireland: A Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1345-1353, November.
    4. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    5. Carlos King Ho Wong & Olivia Wu & Bernard M. Y. Cheung, 2018. "Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14, February.
    6. Kerr, Anne & Hill, Rosemary L. & Till, Christopher, 2018. "The limits of responsible innovation: Exploring care, vulnerability and precision medicine," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 24-31.
    7. J. Raftery, 2014. "NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 613-615, July.
    8. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    9. 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.
    10. Shiroiwa, Takeru & Fukuda, Takashi & Ikeda, Shunya & Takura, Tomoyuki, 2017. "New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 836-841.
    11. Jobjörnsson, Sebastian & Forster, Martin & Pertile, Paolo & Burman, Carl-Fredrik, 2016. "Late-stage pharmaceutical R&D and pricing policies under two-stage regulation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 298-311.
    12. Olina Efthymiadou, 2023. "Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1023-1031, September.
    13. Lisa Masucci & Jaclyn Beca & Mona Sabharwal & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2017. "Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 255-263, December.
    14. Shafrin, Jason & Skornicki, Michelle & Brauer, Michelle & Villeneuve, Julie & Lees, Michael & Hertel, Nadine & Penrod, John R. & Jansen, Jeroen, 2018. "An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 607-613.
    15. Pieter Baal & Alec Morton & David Meltzer & Werner Brouwer, 2019. "Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 1-5, February.
    16. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    17. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    18. Cynthia P. Iglesias & Alexander Thompson & Wolf H. Rogowski & Katherine Payne, 2016. "Reporting Guidelines for the Use of Expert Judgement in Model-Based Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1161-1172, November.
    19. Benedikt Schoser & Andreas Hahn & Emma James & Digant Gupta & Matthew Gitlin & Suyash Prasad, 2019. "A Systematic Review of the Health Economics of Pompe Disease," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 479-493, December.
    20. Carlos K. H. Wong & Brian H. H. Lang & Vivian Y. W. Guo & Cindy L. K. Lam, 2016. "Possible Impact of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) on Decision Making for Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 647-657, December.

    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:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0113-0. 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: 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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.