Abstract
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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 183-186 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Journal of Health Services Research and Policy |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jul 2003 |
Keywords
- 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