The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process
- PMID: 18591289
- DOI: 10.1136/jme.2007.021683
The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process
Abstract
Democratic societies find it difficult to reach consensus concerning principles for healthcare distribution in the face of resource constraints. At the same time the need for legitimacy of allocation decisions has been recognised. Against this background, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) aspires to meet the principles of procedural justice, specifically the conditions of accountability for reasonableness as espoused by Daniels and Sabin, that is, publicity, relevance, revisions and appeal, and enforcement. Although NICE has adopted a highly standardised approach and continuously publishes key documents on its website, its technology appraisal programme does not fulfil the publicity condition of accountability for reasonableness. Economic models are not made sufficiently transparent to enable public scrutiny, and decision criteria other than cost-effectiveness remain enigmatic. NICE's reliance on cost-utility analysis and "plausible" cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) benchmarks further raises serious issues with regard to the relevance condition of accountability for reasonableness. This is illustrated by counterintuitive cost-per-QALY rankings that are difficult to justify using reflective equilibrium methods, and by the current debate surrounding expensive therapies for rare diseases ("orphan" treatments). In addition, an excessive focus on QALYs may stand in the way of exploiting the best available effectiveness evidence. The NICE mechanism for revision and appeals is also more restrictive than provided in accountability for reasonableness. As to the enforcement condition, no effective quality assurance processes are in place for technology assessments, and implementation of guidance remains imperfect. NICE, despite impressive efforts, appears to have a long way to go before meeting the conditions of accountability for reasonableness.
Similar articles
-
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5. Eur J Health Econ. 2008. PMID: 18987905
-
How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Apr;12(2):73-9. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279521. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007. PMID: 17407655
-
Justice and procedure: how does "accountability for reasonableness" result in fair limit-setting decisions?J Med Ethics. 2009 Jan;35(1):12-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024430. J Med Ethics. 2009. PMID: 19103936
-
Public healthcare resource allocation and the Rule of Rescue.J Med Ethics. 2008 Jul;34(7):540-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.021790. J Med Ethics. 2008. PMID: 18591290 Review.
-
Administrative gatekeeping - a third way between unrestricted patient advocacy and bedside rationing.Bioethics. 2009 Jun;23(5):311-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00652.x. Epub 2008 Apr 11. Bioethics. 2009. PMID: 18410460 Review.
Cited by
-
Public and patient involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.Patient. 2011;4(1):1-10. doi: 10.2165/11586090-000000000-00000. Patient. 2011. PMID: 21766889 Review.
-
Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada.BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Nov 30;11:329. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-329. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011. PMID: 22129247 Free PMC article.
-
Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE.Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(1):107-134. doi: 10.1353/ken.2017.0005. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017. PMID: 28366905 Free PMC article.
-
Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa.Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012 Feb 29;10(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-2. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012. PMID: 22376143 Free PMC article.
-
Unintended effects of orphan product designation for rare neurological diseases.Ann Neurol. 2012 Oct;72(4):481-90. doi: 10.1002/ana.23672. Ann Neurol. 2012. PMID: 23109143 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials