Just out is a new Research Paper from OHE that examines how local NHS organisations in Wales adjust spending to accommodate ‘shocks’ such as new NICE mandates for covering specific technologies. By law, technologies recommended by NICE are to be funded within three months of publication of NICE’s technology appraisal (TA) decision.
This recent research is intended to inform changes in NICE's approach to assessing the value of medical technologies.
Throughout the year, OHE presents a number of Lunchtime Seminars intended to discuss important current issues in health economics. On 30 January, OHE invited Dr Donna Rowen of the University of Sheffield to present her recent research on defining social preferences.
This paper counters recent research that recommended NICE lower its threshold from the current official £20,000-£30,000.
Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold
The OHE has just published an Occasional Paper by Barnsley et al that counters the recently-published recommendation by Claxton et all that NICE should lower its cost-per-QALY threshold from the current £20,000–£30,000 official range to £12,936. The Claxton et al paper is an excellent attempt at answering a difficult question, based on a detailed analysis of differences in spending and mortality across Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) throughout England during the 2008–09 financial year.
Using data for 1999-2011, this thorough analysis explores what has most influenced NICE's decisions and whether this has changed.
Established in 1999, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) undertakes appraisals of selected technologies and issues guidance intended to ensure quality and value for money. Its decisions are binding within the NHS and also affect decisions by health technology assessment bodies and payers in other countries.
OHE’s Prof Nancy Devlin presented at two key workshops held for researchers and HTA policy makers from across Asia. The workshops were organised by Prof Nan Luo, National University of Singapore, in collaboration with the EuroQol Group.
Just out in the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care is an important new study that reviews appraisals of breast cancer and colorectal cancer medicines by HTA agencies in a selection of industrialised countries: Australia, Canada, France, Scotland, and the United Kingdom (England and Wales). The aims of the study are to identify the key determinants of decisions and understand the similarities and differences in the requirements of the five agencies.
The OHE has been very active in conceptualising approaches incorporating a broader assessment of the elements of value (often called "value based pricing" or "VBP"), as its publications to date illustrate. During the last quarter of 2012, OHE has been active in discussions of VBP in a variety of forums.
In 2009, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued supplementary advice that its Appraisal Committees are to consider when assessing treatments that extend life at the end of life. The policy places additional weight on the survival benefits for a small numbers of patients with terminal illnesses and short life expectancies. It assumes that this accurately reflects the preferences of the general public. However, little scientific evidence is available to support that premise.
HTAinSiteImagine being able to find, in ONE minute or less, which NICE Technology Assessments (TAs) make specific reference to QALY thresholds of £20,000 or £30,000, for example, or to risk sharing, or patient access schemes. This is possible using HTAinSite -- a unique resource of information on NICE Technology Appraisal decisions and the evidence used to support them.