IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies

Listed author(s):
  • Karl Claxton

    (Centre for Health Economics and Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, UK)

  • Stephen Palmer

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Louise Longworth

    (Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, UK)

  • Laura Bojke

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Susan Griffin

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Claire McKenna

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Marta Soares

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Eldon Spackman

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Jihee Youn

    (Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, UK)

The general issue of balancing the value of evidence about the performance of a technology and the value of access to a technology can be seen as central to a number of policy questions. Establishing the key principles of what assessments are needed, as well as how they should be made, will enable them to be addressed in an explicit and transparent manner. This report presents the key finding from MRC and NHIR funded research which aimed to: i) Establish the key principles of what assessments are needed to inform an only in research (OIR) or Approval with Research (AWR) recommendation. ii) Evaluate previous NICE guidance where OIR or AWR recommendations were made or considered. iii) Evaluate a range of alternative options to establish the criteria, additional information and/or analysis which could be made available to help the assessment needed to inform an OIR or AWR recommendation. iv) Provide a series of final recommendations, with the involvement of key stakeholders, establishing both the key principles and associated criteria that might guide OIR and AWR recommendations, identifying what, if any, additional information or analysis might be included in the Technology Appraisal process and how such recommendations might be more likely to be implemented through publicly funded and sponsored research. The key principles and the assessments and judgments required are discussed in Section 2. The sequence of assessment and judgment is represented as an algorithm, which can also be summarised as a simple set of explicit criteria or a seven point checklist of assessments. The application of the check list of assessment to a series of four case studies in Section 3 can inform considerations of whether such assessments can be made based on existing information and analysis in current NICE appraisal and in what circumstances could additional information and/or analysis be useful. In Section 4, some of the implications that this more explicit assessment of OIR and AWR might have for policy (e.g., NICE guidance and drug pricing), the process of appraisal (e.g., greater involvement of research commissioners) and methods of appraisal (e.g., should additional information, evidence and analysis be required) are drawn together.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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:
File Function: First version, 2011
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Centre for Health Economics, University of York in its series Working Papers with number 069cherp.

in new window

Length: 81 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2011
Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:69cherp
Contact details of provider: Postal:
York Y010 5DD

Phone: (01904) 321401
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

in new window

  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.
  2. Palmer, Stephen & Smith, Peter C., 2000. "Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 755-766, September.
  3. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. Basu, Anirban, 2011. "Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 549-559, May.
  5. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Chris McCabe & Andrew Briggs & Ron Akehurst & Martin Buxton & John Brazier & Tony O'Hagan, 2005. "Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 339-347.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chy:respap:69cherp. 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: (Frances Sharp)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.