Patients' views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making?

Nancy Devlin, John Appleby, David Parkin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)


Patient groups in England and Wales have expressed concerns about the decision-making processes of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the body responsible for explicit rationing. Five key issues were identified by the Multiple Sclerosis Society regarding NICE appraisals and guidance: they focus too narrowly on costs to the National Health Service; quality-adjusted life-years are an inadequate measure of health gain, particularly for long-term conditions; NICE takes too conservative a view of long-term benefits; NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold is inappropriate; and NICE evaluations fail to capture patients' personal experiences of their condition and treatments. We question the veracity of some of these arguments and, where appropriate, suggest ways in which NICE's processes might be strengthened.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)183-186
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Health Services Research and Policy
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2003


  • Academies and Institutes
  • Adjuvants, Immunologic
  • Attitude to Health
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Decision Making, Organizational
  • England
  • Health Care Rationing
  • Humans
  • Interferon-beta
  • Models, Econometric
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • Self Efficacy
  • State Medicine
  • Technology Assessment, Biomedical
  • Uncertainty
  • Voluntary Health Agencies
  • Wales


Dive into the research topics of 'Patients' views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this