IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v1y2006i03p299-318_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process

Author

Listed:
  • Culyer, Anthony J.

Abstract

This paper seeks to test 12 conjectures about the predicted use of deliberative processes by applying them to the technology assessment procedures used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. A deliberative process is one that elicits and combines evidence of different kinds and from different sources in order to develop guidance – in the present case, guidance for a health care system. A deliberative process entails the integration of three kinds of evidence: scientific context-free evidence about the general clinical potential of a technology, scientific context-sensitive evidence about particular evidence in realistic scenarios, and colloquial evidence to fit context-free scientific evidence into a context and to supply the best evidence short of scientific evidence to fill in any relevant gaps. It is shown that NICE's appraisals procedures and, in particular, its approach to cost effectiveness, entail both the weighing of each of these types of evidence and can be seen as rational responses to the 12 conjectures.

Suggested Citation

  • Culyer, Anthony J., 2006. "NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 299-318, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:1:y:2006:i:03:p:299-318_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133106004026/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    2. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    3. Flitcroft, Kathy & Gillespie, James & Salkeld, Glenn & Carter, Stacy & Trevena, Lyndal, 2011. "Getting evidence into policy: The need for deliberative strategies?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1039-1046, April.
    4. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2020. "After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 247-257, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:1:y:2006:i:03:p:299-318_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.