Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2008

01-09-2008 | Briefing Paper

The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold

What it is and What that Means

Authors: Professor Christopher McCabe, Karl Claxton, Anthony J. Culyer

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 9/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been using a cost-effectiveness threshold range between £20 000 and £30 000 for over 7 years. What the cost-effectiveness threshold represents, what the appropriate level is for NICE to use, and what the other factors are that NICE should consider have all been the subject of much discussion. In this article, we briefly review these questions, provide a critical assessment of NICE’s utilization of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold to inform its guidance, and suggest ways in which NICE’s utilization of the ICER threshold could be developed to promote the efficient use of health service resources.
We conclude that it is feasible and probably desirable to operate an explicit single threshold rather than the current range; the threshold should be seen as a threshold at which ‘other’ criteria beyond the ICER itself are taken into account; interventions with a large budgetary impact may need to be subject to a lower threshold as they are likely to displace more than the marginal activities; reimbursement at the threshold transfers the full value of an innovation to the manufacturer.
Positive decisions above the threshold on the grounds of innovation reduce population health; the value of the threshold should be reconsidered regularly to ensure that it captures the impact of changes in efficiency and budget over time; the use of equity weights to sustain a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold requires knowledge of the equity characteristics of those patients who bear the opportunity cost. Given the barriers to obtaining this knowledge and knowledge about the characteristics of typical beneficiaries of UK NHS care, caution is warranted before accepting claims from special pleaders; uncertainty in the evidence base should not be used to justify a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold. The development of a programme of disinvestment guidance would enable NICE and the NHS to be more confident that the net health benefit of the Technology Appraisal Programme is positive.
Literature
1.
go back to reference NICE guide to the methods of health technology appraisal. London: NICE 2004 NICE guide to the methods of health technology appraisal. London: NICE 2004
2.
go back to reference The use of thresholds: discussion. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 38 The use of thresholds: discussion. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 38
3.
go back to reference Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Economics 2005 Feb; 14 (2): 197–208PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Economics 2005 Feb; 14 (2): 197–208PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Culyer AJ. Introduction. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 9–15 Culyer AJ. Introduction. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 9–15
5.
go back to reference Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–227PubMedCrossRef Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–227PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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 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
7.
go back to reference Smith RD, Richardson J. Can we estimate the ‘social value’ of a QALY? Four core issues to resolve. Health Policy 2005; 74 (1): 77–84PubMedCrossRef Smith RD, Richardson J. Can we estimate the ‘social value’ of a QALY? Four core issues to resolve. Health Policy 2005; 74 (1): 77–84PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Culyer AJ, McCabe CJ, Briggs AH, et al. Searching for a threshold not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007 12; 1: 56–58CrossRef Culyer AJ, McCabe CJ, Briggs AH, et al. Searching for a threshold not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007 12; 1: 56–58CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Loomes G. Valuing life years and QALYs: transferability and convertibility of values across the UK public sector. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 46–55 Loomes G. Valuing life years and QALYs: transferability and convertibility of values across the UK public sector. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 46–55
10.
go back to reference Williams A. What could be nicer than NICE? London: Office of Health Economics, 2004 Williams A. What could be nicer than NICE? London: Office of Health Economics, 2004
11.
go back to reference Hutton J, Maynard A. A NICE challenge for health economics. Health Econ 2000; 8: 89–93CrossRef Hutton J, Maynard A. A NICE challenge for health economics. Health Econ 2000; 8: 89–93CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Devlin N. An introduction to the use of cost effectiveness issues in decision making: what are the issues? In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 16–25 Devlin N. An introduction to the use of cost effectiveness issues in decision making: what are the issues? In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 16–25
13.
go back to reference Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–296PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–296PubMedCrossRef
14.
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: 913–917PubMed 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: 913–917PubMed
15.
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 (3): 185–191PubMedCrossRef 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 (3): 185–191PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11: 23–31PubMedCrossRef Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11: 23–31PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Claxton K, Culyer AJ, Sculpher M, et al. Discounting and cost effectiveness in NICE: stepping back to sort out a confusion [editorial]. Health Econ 2006; 15 (1): 1–4PubMedCrossRef Claxton K, Culyer AJ, Sculpher M, et al. Discounting and cost effectiveness in NICE: stepping back to sort out a confusion [editorial]. Health Econ 2006; 15 (1): 1–4PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Framework document [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/NICEmedia/pdf/appendixB_framework.pdf [Accessed 2008 Jul 18] National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Framework document [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​NICEmedia/​pdf/​appendixB_​framework.​pdf [Accessed 2008 Jul 18]
19.
go back to reference Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ 2008 Feb; 336: 251–254PubMedCrossRef Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ 2008 Feb; 336: 251–254PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Friedman M. Lectures in price theory. Chicago (IL): Aldine, 1971 Friedman M. Lectures in price theory. Chicago (IL): Aldine, 1971
21.
22.
go back to reference Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D, et al. Searching for local NHS cost effectiveness thresholds: a feasibility study. NICE conference; Manchester; 2007 Dec 5–6 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice2007.co.uk/ApplebyDevlin.pdf [Accessed 2008 Jul 17] Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D, et al. Searching for local NHS cost effectiveness thresholds: a feasibility study. NICE conference; Manchester; 2007 Dec 5–6 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice2007.​co.​uk/​ApplebyDevlin.​pdf [Accessed 2008 Jul 17]
23.
go back to reference Martin S, Rice N, Smith P. Further evidence on the link between health care spending and health outcomes in England [CHE discussion paper 32]. York: University of York, 2007 Martin S, Rice N, Smith P. Further evidence on the link between health care spending and health outcomes in England [CHE discussion paper 32]. York: University of York, 2007
24.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE launches commissioning guides as part of an initiative to help NHS reduce spend on ineffective treatments [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/newsevents/infocus/nice_launches_cornmissioning_guides_as_part_of_an_initiat ive_to_help_nhs_reduce_spending_on_ineffective_treatments.jsp [Accessed 2008 Jul 17] National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE launches commissioning guides as part of an initiative to help NHS reduce spend on ineffective treatments [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​newsevents/​infocus/​nice_​launches_​cornmissioning_​guides_​as_​part_​of_​an_​initiat ive_to_help_nhs_reduce_spending_on_ineffective_treatments.jsp [Accessed 2008 Jul 17]
25.
go back to reference Association of Directors of Public Health. Letter from the President: patient charges for treatment. ADPH 2007 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://www.adph.org.uk/press_releases/20070131.php?PHPSESSID=Ijftq9htaji5qglme2i3a01nlh5 [Accessed 2008 Jul 17] Association of Directors of Public Health. Letter from the President: patient charges for treatment. ADPH 2007 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​adph.​org.​uk/​press_​releases/​20070131.​php?​PHPSESSID=​Ijftq9htaji5qglm​e2i3a01nlh5 [Accessed 2008 Jul 17]
26.
go back to reference House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: first report of session 2007–08. Vol. 1. London: The Stationary Office, 2008 Jan House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: first report of session 2007–08. Vol. 1. London: The Stationary Office, 2008 Jan
27.
go back to reference Rawlins M. The future for NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). Pharm J 2007; 278 (7452): 589 Rawlins M. The future for NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). Pharm J 2007; 278 (7452): 589
28.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE response to the committee’s first report of the session 2007–2008 HSC 550. London: The Stationary Office, 2008 Jun National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE response to the committee’s first report of the session 2007–2008 HSC 550. London: The Stationary Office, 2008 Jun
Metadata
Title
The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold
What it is and What that Means
Authors
Professor Christopher McCabe
Karl Claxton
Anthony J. Culyer
Publication date
01-09-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 9/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004

Other articles of this Issue 9/2008

PharmacoEconomics 9/2008 Go to the issue