IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/93cherp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Dakin

    (Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, UK)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK)

  • Yan Feng

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK)

  • Nigel Rice

    (Centre for Health Economics and Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, UK)

  • Phill O’Neill

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK)

  • David Parkin

    (Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College London, UK)

Abstract

Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) emphasises that cost-effectiveness is not the only consideration in health technology appraisal and is increasingly explicit about other factors considered relevant. Observing NICE decisions and the evidence considered in each appraisal allows us to ‘reveal’ its implicit weights. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions and to investigate whether NICE’s decision-making has changed through time. Methods: We build on and extend the modelling approaches in Devlin and Parkin (2004) and Dakin et al (2006). We model NICE’s decisions as binary choices: i.e. recommendations for or against use of a healthcare technology in a specific patient group. Independent variables comprised: the clinical and economic evidence regarding that technology; the characteristics of the patients, disease or treatment; and contextual factors affecting the conduct of health technology appraisal. Data on all NICE decisions published by December 2011 were obtained from HTAinSite [www.htainsite.com]. Results: Cost-effectiveness alone correctly predicted 82% of decisions; few other variables were significant and alternative model specifications led to very small variations in model performance. The odds of a positive NICE recommendation differed significantly between musculoskeletal disease, respiratory disease, cancer and other conditions. The accuracy with which the model predicted NICE recommendations was slightly improved by allowing for end of life criteria, uncertainty, publication date, clinical evidence, only treatment, paediatric population, patient group evidence, appraisal process, orphan status, innovation and use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis, although these variables were not statistically significant. Although there was a non-significant trend towards more recent decisions having a higher chance of a positive recommendation, there is currently no evidence that the threshold has changed over time. The model with highest prediction accuracy suggested that a technology costing £40,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) would have a 50% chance of NICE rejection (75% at £52,000/QALY; 25% at £27,000/QALY). Discussion: Past NICE decisions appear to have been based on a higher threshold than the £20,000- £30,000/QALY range that is explicitly stated. However, this finding may reflect consideration of other factors that drive a small number of NICE decisions or cannot be easily quantified.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O’Neill & David Parkin, 2013. "The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions," Working Papers 093cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:93cherp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP93_cost-effectiveness_NICE_decisions.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cerri, Karin H & Knapp, Martin & Fernandez, Jose-Luis, 2014. "Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context – CORRIGENDUM," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 435-435, October.
    2. Appleby, John & Devlin, Nancy & Parkin, David & Buxton, Martin & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2009. "Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 239-245, August.
    3. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Cerri, Karin H. & Knapp, Martin & Fernandez, Jose-Luis, 2014. "Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 119-141, April.
    8. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    9. Warren Linley & Dyfrig Hughes, 2012. "Reimbursement Decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(9), pages 779-794, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Helen Mason & Michael Jones‐Lee & Cam Donaldson, 2009. "Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 933-950, August.
    12. John B. Carlin & John C. Galati & Patrick Royston, 2008. "A new framework for managing and analyzing multiply imputed data in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(1), pages 49-67, February.
    13. Anthony Culyer, 2009. "Deliberative Processes in Decisions about Health Care Technologies," Briefing 000231, Office of Health Economics.
    14. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    15. Nancy Devlin;Jon Sussex, 2011. "Incorporating Multiple Criteria in HTA: Methods and Processes," Monograph 000189, Office of Health Economics.
    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. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    2. J. Raftery, 2014. "NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 613-615, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Carlos K. H. Wong & Brian H. H. Lang & Vivian Y. W. Guo & Cindy L. K. Lam, 2016. "Possible Impact of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) on Decision Making for Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 647-657, December.
    5. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Lisa Masucci & Jaclyn Beca & Mona Sabharwal & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2017. "Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 255-263, December.
    7. Shafrin, Jason & Skornicki, Michelle & Brauer, Michelle & Villeneuve, Julie & Lees, Michael & Hertel, Nadine & Penrod, John R. & Jansen, Jeroen, 2018. "An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 607-613.
    8. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    9. Pieter Baal & Alec Morton & David Meltzer & Werner Brouwer, 2019. "Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 1-5, February.
    10. Francesco Paolucci & Ken Redekop & Ayman Fouda & Gianluca Fiorentini, 2017. "Decision Making and Priority Setting: The Evolving Path Towards Universal Health Coverage," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 697-706, December.
    11. Anna Hobbins & Luke Barry & Dan Kelleher & Koonal Shah & Nancy Devlin & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Ciaran O’Neill, 2018. "Utility Values for Health States in Ireland: A Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1345-1353, November.
    12. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    13. Olina Efthymiadou, 2023. "Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1023-1031, September.
    14. M. J. Walton & J. O’Connor & C. Carroll & L. Claxton & R. Hodgson, 2019. "A Review of Issues Affecting the Efficiency of Decision Making in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 403-410, September.
    15. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    16. Carlos King Ho Wong & Olivia Wu & Bernard M. Y. Cheung, 2018. "Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14, February.
    17. Cynthia P. Iglesias & Alexander Thompson & Wolf H. Rogowski & Katherine Payne, 2016. "Reporting Guidelines for the Use of Expert Judgement in Model-Based Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1161-1172, November.
    18. Benedikt Schoser & Andreas Hahn & Emma James & Digant Gupta & Matthew Gitlin & Suyash Prasad, 2019. "A Systematic Review of the Health Economics of Pompe Disease," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 479-493, December.
    19. Jobjörnsson, Sebastian & Forster, Martin & Pertile, Paolo & Burman, Carl-Fredrik, 2016. "Late-stage pharmaceutical R&D and pricing policies under two-stage regulation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 298-311.
    20. Shiroiwa, Takeru & Fukuda, Takashi & Ikeda, Shunya & Takura, Tomoyuki, 2017. "New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 836-841.
    21. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    22. Kerr, Anne & Hill, Rosemary L. & Till, Christopher, 2018. "The limits of responsible innovation: Exploring care, vulnerability and precision medicine," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 24-31.

    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. 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.
    2. Malinowski, Krzysztof Piotr & Kawalec, Paweł & Trąbka, Wojciech, 2016. "Impact of patient outcomes and cost aspects on reimbursement recommendations in Poland in 2012–2014," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1249-1255.
    3. 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).
    4. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    5. Laura Levaggi & Rosella Levaggi, 2011. "Welfare properties of restrictions to health care based on cost effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 101-110, January.
    6. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    7. John McKie & Bradley Shrimpton & Jeff Richardson & Rosalind Hurworth, 2011. "The monetary value of a life year: evidence from a qualitative study of treatment costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 945-957, August.
    8. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Chris Schilling & Duncan Mortimer & Kim Dalziel, 2017. "Using CART to Identify Thresholds and Hierarchies in the Determinants of Funding Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 173-182, February.
    12. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    13. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. 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.
    15. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Gambold, Liesl & Peacock, Stuart, 2021. "Uncertainty tolerance among experts involved in drug reimbursement recommendations: Qualitative evidence from HTA committees in Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 307-319.
    16. 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.
    17. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Nils Gutacker & Andrew Street, 2018. "Multidimensional performance assessment of public sector organisations using dominance criteria," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 13-27, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health technology assessment; implicit weights; cost-effectiveness; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); logistic regression;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:chy:respap:93cherp. 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: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    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.