IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v28y2010i11p987-993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of NICE’s ‘Restricted’ (or ‘Optimized’) Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Phill O’Neill
  • Nancy Devlin

Abstract

Background: A common way of describing UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decisions is to distinguish between cases where NICE recommended use of a healthcare technology by all relevant patients (‘yes’); those where it did not recommend use (‘no’); and those where its decisions are a mixture of ‘yes’ to some patient subgroups, and ‘no’ to others. Over half of NICE’s decisions are of this mixed type, which involve restricting (or‘optimizing’) patient use in some way. Objective: To report an attempt to develop a robust and defensible means of measuring and describing the degree of patient access in mixed NICE decisions. Methods: A list of mixed decisions made from 2006 to the end of 2009 was identified using HTAinSite™. The following calculation was used: M= (p/P) × 100, where M is a measure of the level of patient access (0=no access, 100=full access), P is the set of patients considered in the guidance as Potential candidates for treatment (given the licensed use and the scope of NICE’s appraisal), and p is a subset of those patients, for whom NICE did recommend treatment.Mcan be estimated either for a specific product or for a group of technologies (Multiple Technology Appraisals). Both productspecific and overall M were estimated, using estimates of p obtained from NICE costing templates. These data are subject to some important limitations, so the results should be regarded as illustrative. Results: Of the 69 medicines that have received a mixed decision since January 2006, 34 included details that allowed the estimation of M. Of these 34 decisions, 24 (71%) had a product-specific M ≤50, 16 (47%) M ≤25 and 11 (32%) M ≤10. That is, in just under three-quarters of the mixed decisions for which P and p were available, NICE recommended use for less than half of patients for whom the medicine is licensed, and in nearly one-third of these sorts of decisions, NICE recommended use in ≤10% of potential patients. The estimates of M for groups of technologies provide a slightly different picture: for example, grouped M was ≤10 in >20% of decisions. Conclusions: The measure of patient access, M, proposed here has the potential to provide a more informative way of reporting all NICE decisions, particularly ‘restricted’ (or ‘optimized’) decisions. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010

Suggested Citation

  • Phill O’Neill & Nancy Devlin, 2010. "An Analysis of NICE’s ‘Restricted’ (or ‘Optimized’) Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(11), pages 987-993, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:11:p:987-993
    DOI: 10.2165/11536970-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11536970-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11536970-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    2. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    2. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    2. Leonie Segal & Kim Dalziel & Duncan Mortimer, 2010. "Fixing the game: are between‐silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head‐start?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 449-465, April.
    3. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    4. 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.
    5. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    6. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    7. Fischer, Katharina E. & Leidl, Reiner & Rogowski, Wolf H., 2011. "A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: Development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 290-299, August.
    8. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    9. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    10. Javad Moradpour & Aidan Hollis, 2021. "The economic theory of cost‐effectiveness thresholds in health: Domestic and international implications," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1139-1151, May.
    11. Cairns, John, 2006. "Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 134-143, April.
    12. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    13. repec:ces:ifodic:v:4:y:2006:i:2:p:14567506 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    15. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Henderson, John & Janke, Katharina & Propper, Carol, 2007. "Are current levels of air pollution in England too high?: the impact of pollution on population mortality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6205, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    18. Joseph P. Cook & Joseph Golec, 2017. "How excluding some benefits from value assessment of new drugs impacts innovation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1813-1825, December.
    19. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    20. E. Stolk & M. Poley, 2005. "Criteria for determining a basic health services package," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 2-7, March.
    21. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.

    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:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:11:p:987-993. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.