Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 3/2003

01-02-2003 | Current Opinion

NICE Methodological Guidelines and Decision Making in the National Health Service in England and Wales

Authors: Dr Amiram Gafni, Stephen Birch

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 3/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) responds to requests by the Department of Health for guidance on the use of selected new and established technologies in the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. This paper asks whether the NICE methodological guidelines help NHS decision makers meet the objectives of maximum health improvements from NHS resources and an equitable availability of technologies. The analytical basis of the guidelines is a comparison of the costs and consequences of new and existing methods of dealing with particular conditions using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We explain why information on the costs and consequences of a particular technology in isolation is insufficient to address issues of efficiency of resource use. We argue that to increase efficiency, decision makers need information on opportunity costs. We show that in the absence of such information decision makers cannot identify the efficient use of resources. Finally we argue that economics provides valid methods for identifying the maximisation of health improvements for a given allocation of resources and we describe an alternative practical approach to this problem. Drawing on the experience of Ontario, Canada where an approach similar to that proposed by NICE has been in use for almost a decade, and recent reports about the consequences of NICE decisions to date, we conclude that instead of increasing the efficiency or equity of the use of NHS resources, NICE methodological guidelines may lead to: (i) uncontrolled increases in NHS expenditures without evidence of any increase in total health improvements; (ii) increased inequities in the availability of services; and (iii) concerns about the sustainability of public funding for new technologies.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference House of Commons’ Select Committee. Health: National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2002 House of Commons’ Select Committee. Health: National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2002
2.
go back to reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufactures and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001 National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufactures and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001
3.
go back to reference Birch S, Gafni A. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales. Health Econ 2002; 11: 185–91PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Gafni A. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales. Health Econ 2002; 11: 185–91PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
go back to reference Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001; 323: 743–5PubMedCrossRef Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001; 323: 743–5PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Weinstein HC, Stason WB. Foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 716–21PubMedCrossRef Weinstein HC, Stason WB. Foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 716–21PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Taylor R. Generating national guidance: a nice model? Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Strategic Issues in Health Care Management Policy, Finance and Performance in Health Care; 2002 Apr 11–13; St Andrews, Scotland Taylor R. Generating national guidance: a nice model? Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Strategic Issues in Health Care Management Policy, Finance and Performance in Health Care; 2002 Apr 11–13; St Andrews, Scotland
9.
go back to reference Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–57CrossRef Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–57CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Birch S, Gafni A. Cost-effectiveness/utility analysis: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–96PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Gafni A. Cost-effectiveness/utility analysis: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–96PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Birch S, Gafni A. Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein’s (mis)application of economics to real world problems. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 469–76PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Gafni A. Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein’s (mis)application of economics to real world problems. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 469–76PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization?: tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–81PubMed Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization?: tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–81PubMed
13.
go back to reference Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. CMAJ 1993; 148: 913–7PubMed Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. CMAJ 1993; 148: 913–7PubMed
14.
go back to reference Laupacis A. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? CMAJ 2002; 166: 44–7PubMed Laupacis A. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? CMAJ 2002; 166: 44–7PubMed
15.
go back to reference Williams A. The economic role of ‘health indicators’. In: Teeling Smith G, editor. Measuring the social benefits of medicine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1983 Williams A. The economic role of ‘health indicators’. In: Teeling Smith G, editor. Measuring the social benefits of medicine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1983
16.
go back to reference Sendi P, Gafni A, Birsh S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11: 23–31PubMedCrossRef Sendi P, Gafni A, Birsh S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11: 23–31PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Naylor CD. Cost-effectiveness analysis: are the outputs worth the inputs? ACP Journal Club 1996; 124: A12–4PubMed Naylor CD. Cost-effectiveness analysis: are the outputs worth the inputs? ACP Journal Club 1996; 124: A12–4PubMed
18.
go back to reference Culyer AJ. Health, economics and health economics. In: van der Gaaf J, Perlman M, editors. Health, economics and health economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1981: 3–11 Culyer AJ. Health, economics and health economics. In: van der Gaaf J, Perlman M, editors. Health, economics and health economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1981: 3–11
19.
go back to reference Maynard A, Sheldon T. Health economics: has it fulfilled its potential? In: Maynard A, Chalmers I, editors. Non-random reflection on health services research. London: BMJ Press, 1997 Maynard A, Sheldon T. Health economics: has it fulfilled its potential? In: Maynard A, Chalmers I, editors. Non-random reflection on health services research. London: BMJ Press, 1997
20.
go back to reference Burk K. NICE may fail to stop “postcode prescribing”, MPs told. BMJ 2002; 324: 191CrossRef Burk K. NICE may fail to stop “postcode prescribing”, MPs told. BMJ 2002; 324: 191CrossRef
Metadata
Title
NICE Methodological Guidelines and Decision Making in the National Health Service in England and Wales
Authors
Dr Amiram Gafni
Stephen Birch
Publication date
01-02-2003
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 3/2003
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321030-00001

Other articles of this Issue 3/2003

PharmacoEconomics 3/2003 Go to the issue