IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i5p437-452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy Devlin
  • David Parkin

Abstract

The decisions made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) give rise to two questions: how is cost‐effectiveness evidence used to make judgements about the ‘value for money’ of health technologies? And how are factors other than cost‐effectiveness taken into account? The aim of this paper is to explore NICE's cost‐effectiveness threshold(s) and the tradeoffs between cost effectiveness and other factors apparent in its decisions. Binary choice analysis is used to reveal the preferences of NICE and to consider the consistency of its decisions. For each decision to accept or reject a technology, explanatory variables include: the cost per life year or per QALY gained; uncertainty regarding cost effectiveness; the net cost to the NHS; the burden of disease; the availability (or not) of alternative treatments; and specific factors indicated by NICE. Results support the broad notion of a threshold, where the probability of rejection increases as the cost per QALY increases. Cost effectiveness, together with uncertainty and the burden of disease, explain NICE decisions better than cost effectiveness alone. The results suggest a threshold somewhat higher than NICEs stated ‘range of acceptable cost effectiveness’ of £20 000–£30 000 per QALY – although the exact meaning of a ‘range’ in this context remains unclear. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:437-452
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.864
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.864?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180, March.
    2. Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 185-191, April.
    3. John Hutton & Alan Maynard, 2000. "A nice challenge for health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 89-93, March.
    4. Clive Pritchard;Nancy Devlin;Adrian Towse, 2002. "Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Economic and ethical issues," Monograph 000473, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Devlin, N., 2003. "Does NICE have a cost effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A discrete choice analysis," Working Papers 03/01, Department of Economics, City University London.
    2. 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.
    3. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    4. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2006. "Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2091-2100, May.
    5. Rothgang, Heinz & Niebuhr, Dea & Wasem, Jürgen & Greß, Stefan, 2004. "Evidenzbasierte Bestimmung des Leistungskatalogs im Gesundheitswesen? Das Beispiel des englischen National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)," Working papers of the ZeS 02/2004, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    6. McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Mitton, Craig, 2006. "The Common Drug Review: A NICE start for Canada?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 339-351, August.
    7. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Jack Dowie, 2004. "Why cost‐effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 453-459, May.
    9. 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.
    10. A. Gafni & S. D. Walter & S. Birch & P. Sendi, 2008. "An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 99-107, January.
    11. Adam Oliver, 2005. "The English National Health Service: 1979‐2005," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages 75-99, September.
    12. Suijkerbuijk, Anita W.M. & Over, Eelco A.B. & van Aar, Fleur & Götz, Hannelore M. & van Benthem, Birgit H.B. & Lugnér, Anna K., 2018. "Consequences of restricted STI testing for young heterosexuals in the Netherlands on test costs and QALY losses," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 198-203.
    13. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Putting different price tags on the same health condition: Re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1032-1043.
    14. Tanja Sinozic & Mete Basar Baypinar & Edward M. Bergman & Miklos Hornyak & Ferenc Kruzslicz & Attila Varga, 2015. "A Policy Research Method Case-Study: Generating and Extracting Evidence-based Policy Inferences from a large EC Framework Programme Project," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2015_04, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    15. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    16. John Yfantopoulos, 2008. "Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement reforms in Greece," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 87-97, February.
    17. Jesús Martín-Fernández & Gloria Ariza-Cardiel & Luz Mª Peña-Longobardo & Elena Polentinos-Castro & Juan Oliva-Moreno & Ana Isabel Gil-Lacruz & Héctor Medina-Palomino & Isabel del Cura-González, 2017. "“Gaining or losing”: The importance of the perspective in primary care health services valuation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2012. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14021.
    19. Whynes, David K. & Sach, Tracey H., 2007. "WTP and WTA: Do people think differently?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 946-957, September.
    20. Richard Grieve & John Cairns & Simon G. Thompson, 2010. "Improving costing methods in multicentre economic evaluation: the use of multiple imputation for unit costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 939-954, August.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:437-452. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.