Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2017

01-08-2017 | Original Research Article

A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?

Authors: Emma Cowles, Grace Marsden, Amanda Cole, Nancy Devlin

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) exert an influence on the allocation of resources within ‘fixed’ National Health Service budgets. Yet guidance for different types of health interventions is handled via different ‘programmes’ within NICE, which follow different methods and processes.

Objective

The objective of this research was to identify differences in the processes and methods of NICE health technology assessment programmes and to explore how these could impact on allocative efficiency within the National Health Service.

Methods

Data were extracted from the NICE technology appraisal programme, medical technologies guidance, diagnostic assessment programme, highly specialised technologies programme, and clinical guidelines process and methods manuals to undertake a systematic comparison. Five qualitative interviews were carried out with NICE members of staff and committee members to explore the reasons for the differences found.

Results

The main differences identified were in the required evidence review period, or lack thereof, mandatory funding status, the provision of a reference case for economic evaluation, the requirement for and the type of economic analysis undertaken, and the decision making criteria used for appraisal.

Conclusion

Many of the differences found can be justified on grounds of practicality and relevance to the health technologies under assessment. Nevertheless, from a strict utilitarian view, there are several potential areas of inefficiency that could lead to the misallocation of resources within the National Health Service, although some of these might be eliminated or reduced if an egalitarian view is taken. The challenge is determining where society is willing to trade health gains between different people.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Knapp M. The economics of social care. Hampshire: Macmillan Publishers Ltd; 1984.CrossRef Knapp M. The economics of social care. Hampshire: Macmillan Publishers Ltd; 1984.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. 2nd ed. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2008. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. 2nd ed. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2008.
3.
go back to reference Dolan P. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality-adjusted life years. Health Care Anal. 2001;9:65–76.CrossRefPubMed Dolan P. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality-adjusted life years. Health Care Anal. 2001;9:65–76.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733–44.CrossRefPubMed McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733–44.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. CHE Research Paper 81: revised report following referees’ comments. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2013. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. CHE Research Paper 81: revised report following referees’ comments. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2013.
6.
go back to reference Barnsley P, Towse A, Schaffer SK, Sussex J. Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. London: Office of Health Economics; 2013: Occasional Paper 13/01. Barnsley P, Towse A, Schaffer SK, Sussex J. Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. London: Office of Health Economics; 2013: Occasional Paper 13/01.
7.
go back to reference Chapman A, Taylor C, Girling A. Are the UK systems of innovation and evaluation of medical devices compatible? The role of NICE’s medical technologies evaluation programme (MTEP). Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(4):347–57.CrossRefPubMed Chapman A, Taylor C, Girling A. Are the UK systems of innovation and evaluation of medical devices compatible? The role of NICE’s medical technologies evaluation programme (MTEP). Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(4):347–57.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Green W, Hutton J. Health technology assessments in England: an analysis of the NICE medical technologies evaluation programme. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:449–52.CrossRefPubMed Green W, Hutton J. Health technology assessments in England: an analysis of the NICE medical technologies evaluation programme. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:449–52.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the processes of technology appraisal: process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the processes of technology appraisal: process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
10.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013: process and methods guides. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013: process and methods guides. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
11.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medical technologies evaluation programme: process guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medical technologies evaluation programme: process guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
12.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medical technologies evaluation programme: methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medical technologies evaluation programme: methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
13.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diagnostics assessment programme manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diagnostics assessment programme manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
14.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim addendum to the diagnostics assessment programme manual: access proposals from the sponsors of diagnostic technologies. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim addendum to the diagnostics assessment programme manual: access proposals from the sponsors of diagnostic technologies. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
15.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim addendum to replace existing section 9: guidance reviews, in DAP programme manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim addendum to replace existing section 9: guidance reviews, in DAP programme manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
16.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim process and methods of the highly specialised technologies programme. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim process and methods of the highly specialised technologies programme. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
17.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. Process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. Process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.
18.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual appendices A to I. Process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual appendices A to I. Process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.
19.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual appendix H. Process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual appendix H. Process and methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.
20.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interventional procedures programme: process guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2009. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interventional procedures programme: process guide. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2009.
21.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interventional procedures programme: methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interventional procedures programme: methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009.
22.
go back to reference Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Official Journal of the European Union; 2014. Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Official Journal of the European Union; 2014.
23.
go back to reference Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs: same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–6.CrossRefPubMed Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs: same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–6.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Kiristis A, Redekop W. The economic evaluation of medical devices: challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):15–26.CrossRef Kiristis A, Redekop W. The economic evaluation of medical devices: challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):15–26.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, Drummond M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13(Suppl. 2):ii54–8. Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, Drummond M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13(Suppl. 2):ii54–8.
26.
go back to reference Taylor R, Iglesias C. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–4.CrossRef Taylor R, Iglesias C. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–4.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Drummond M, Wilson D, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess. 2007;23(1):36–42.CrossRef Drummond M, Wilson D, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess. 2007;23(1):36–42.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Hughes D, Tunnage B, Yeo S. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98:829–36.CrossRefPubMed Hughes D, Tunnage B, Yeo S. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98:829–36.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
go back to reference Linley WG, Hughes DA. 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 Econ. 2013;22:948–64.CrossRefPubMed Linley WG, Hughes DA. 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 Econ. 2013;22:948–64.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE citizens council report: ultra orphan drugs. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2004. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE citizens council report: ultra orphan drugs. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2004.
32.
go back to reference Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in health technology assessment in eight European countries. Int J Public Health. 2014;1(3):83–97. Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in health technology assessment in eight European countries. Int J Public Health. 2014;1(3):83–97.
33.
go back to reference Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(6):609–21.CrossRefPubMed Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(6):609–21.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Birch S, Gafni A. The ‘NICE’ approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Health Care Manag Sci. 2004;7:35–41.CrossRefPubMed Birch S, Gafni A. The ‘NICE’ approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Health Care Manag Sci. 2004;7:35–41.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?
Authors
Emma Cowles
Grace Marsden
Amanda Cole
Nancy Devlin
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0309-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2017 Go to the issue