Top

Published in:

01-08-2007 | Original Research Article

A Stated Preference Binary Choice Experiment to Explore NICE Decision Making

Authors: Paul Tappenden, John Brazier, Julie Ratcliffe, James Chilcott

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 8/2007

Abstract

Objective: To explore whether the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) takes account of concerns other than just incremental cost effectiveness in commissioning healthcare services.

Method: A stated preference binary choice experiment was used to explore the preferences of members of NICE’s Appraisal Committees for incremental cost effectiveness, the degree of uncertainty surrounding incremental costs and health outcomes, the age of beneficiaries, baseline health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and the availability of alternative therapies when considering whether to recommend health technologies.

Results: A logit modelling analysis of Committee members’ stated preferences suggested that increases in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and economic uncertainty, and the availability of other therapies was associated with statistically significant reductions in the odds of a positive recommendation (p < 0.01). The transition from a very low to a comparatively high level of baseline HR-QOL was also associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of a positive recommendation (p = 0.003). The age of beneficiaries did not significantly affect decisions concerning whether to recommend technologies.

Conclusion: The results of the choice experiment support the notion of a probabilistic adoption/rejection approach rather than the operation of a single cost-effectiveness threshold.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. A guide to NICE. London: NICE, 2004: 1–34

Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002; 360: 711–715PubMedCrossRef

Smith R. The failings of NICE. BMJ 2006; 321: 1363–1364CrossRef

Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–227PubMedCrossRef

Rawlins MD. Scientific and social value judgements. London: NICE, 2004: 1–20

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. London: NICE, 2005: 1–37

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Supplementary evidence to the House of Commons Health Select Committee: Paper 2. London: NICE, 2002: 1–9

Devlin N, Parkin D, Gold M. WHO evaluates NICE. BMJ 2003; 327: 1061–1062PubMedCrossRef

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods for technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004: 1–71

10.

Littlejohns P. Does NICE have a threshold? A response. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N. Cost-effectiveness thresholds. London: King’s Fund/Office for Health Economics, 2002: 31–37

11.

Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRef

12.

Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13: 437–452PubMedCrossRef

13.

Nord E. Cost-value analysis in health care: making sense out of QALYs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999

14.

Jonsen AR. Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Med Health Care 1986; 14: 172–174PubMed

15.

Le Grand J. Equity, health and health care. Soc Justice Res 1987; 1 (257): 257–274

16.

Dolan P, Olsen JA. Distributing health care: economic and ethical issues. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002

17.

Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ 2007; 16: 179–193PubMedCrossRef

18.

Johnson FR, Backhouse M. Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgements. Value Health 2006; 9 (5): 303–311PubMedCrossRef

19.

Ratcliffe J, Bekker H, Dolan P. The relative importance attached to access, equity and cost-effectiveness by people and organisations providing health services. NICE annual conference and exhibition; 2006 Dec 6–7; Birmingham

20.

Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, et al. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med 2000; 50: 63–75PubMedCrossRef

21.

Dolan P, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, et al. Social QALY project: summary [online]. Available from URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk [Accessed 2005 May 23]

Title: A Stated Preference Binary Choice Experiment to Explore NICE Decision Making
Authors: Paul Tappenden
John Brazier
Julie Ratcliffe
James Chilcott
Publication date: 01-08-2007
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: PharmacoEconomics / Issue 8/2007
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725080-00006

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A Stated Preference Binary Choice Experiment to Explore NICE Decision Making

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2007

The Contrast and Convergence of Bayesian and Frequentist Statistical Approaches in Pharmacoeconomic Analysis

Impact of Pharmaceutical Prior Authorisation Policies

Healthcare Utilisation and Costs Associated with Adding Montelukast to Current Therapy in Patients with Mild to Moderate Asthma and Co-Morbid Allergic Rhinitis

Direct Costs in Patients Hospitalised with Community-Acquired Pneumonia After Non-Response to Outpatient Treatment with Macrolide Antibacterials in the US

When Drugs Don’t Work

A 1-Year Prospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Roflumilast for the Treatment of Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease