• Biosimilars
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • All Topics
OHE OHE
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

News & Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Close
OHE OHE
  • Research & Publications
  • News & Insights
  • Education
  • Innovation Policy Prize
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

Research & Publications

All Publications

Filter by:
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Biosimilars
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Combination Therapies
  • COVID-19 Research
  • Digital Health
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Emerging Markets
  • EQ-5D and PROMs
  • Health Care Systems
  • Health Data and Statistics
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Precision Medicine
  • Real World Evidence
  • Use of Medicines
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Vaccine Research
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
  • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
  • Value, Affordability and Decision Making

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Education

  • Education Hub
  • OHE Graduate School
  • EVIA Programme

Innovation Policy Prize

  • The Prize Fund
  • 2022 Prize Fund

Latest Research & Publications

Proposal for a General Outcome-based Value Attribution Framework for Combination Therapies

CombTher_Adobe_photoguns_portrait
Read more
© photoguns
  • Digital Health

Navigating the Landscape of Digital Health – United Kingdom

Healthcare_Adobe_elenabsl
Read more

2021 OHE Annual Report to the Charity Commission

charityreport_lina-trochez-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© Lina Trochez/Unsplash

Supporting the Era of Green Pharmaceuticals in the UK

Sustainability_AdobeStock_270582392_landscape
Read more

Quality of life and wellbeing in individuals with experience of fertility problems and assisted reproductive techniques

Quality of life assisted reproduction Cover
Read more
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Value, Affordability, and…

Health Technology Assessment of Gene Therapies: Are Our Methods Fit for Purpose?

gene_therapies_national-cancer-institute-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© NCI/Unsplash
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Health Policy and Regulation

Limitations of CBO’s Simulation Model of New Drug Development as a Tool for Policymakers

CBO-US_mayer-tawfik-K4Ckc0AxgDI-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© Mayer Tawfik/Unsplash
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes

When Generic Measures Fail to Reflect What Matters to Patients: Three Case Studies

PROMS_unsplash_National Cancer Institute_landscape
Read more
© NCI/Unsplash
Close
OHE
  • All Publications

    Filter by:
    • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
    • Biosimilars
    • Cell and Gene Therapies
    • Chronic Diseases
    • Combination Therapies
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Digital Health
    • Drug Development/R&D
    • Emerging Markets
    • EQ-5D and PROMs
    • Health Care Systems
    • Health Data and Statistics
    • Health Technology Assessment
    • Precision Medicine
    • Real World Evidence
    • Use of Medicines
    • Value-Based Pricing
    • Vaccine Research
    • Economics of Innovation
    • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
    • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
    • Value, Affordability and Decision Making
    • News
    • Events
    • Insights
    • Bulletin
    • Education Hub
    • OHE Graduate School
    • EVIA Programme
    • The Prize Fund
    • 2022 Prize Fund
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
Back
  • News
11 min read 24th February 2015

OHE Occasional Paper Critiques the Claxton et al. £13,000 per QALY Estimate

OHE has published an Occasional Paper highlighting the significant shortage of data that forced Claxton et al. to rely on a large number of strong assumptions to produce their results. Last week, the journal Health Technology Assessment published the results…

Share:
  •  Twitter
  •  LinkedIn
  •  Facebook
  • has-icon Email

OHE has published an Occasional Paper highlighting the significant shortage of data that forced Claxton et al. to rely on a large number of strong assumptions to produce their results.

Last week, the journal Health Technology Assessment published the results of a study exploring methods for the estimation of the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold (Claxton et al., 2015). In this study, previously released in 2013 as CHE Research Paper CHERP81 (Claxton et al., 2013), the authors present their “best” estimate of just under £13,000 for the marginal cost of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the English NHS in 2008/09.
 
NICE currently uses a cost per QALY threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 – and so recommends many medicines and other technologies that cost more than £13,000 per QALY. Professor Claxton argued in the accompanying press release that this was resulting in “real harm” because these decisions cause more QALYs to be lost than gained.
 
OHE has published an Occasional Paper by Barnsley et al. highlighting the significant shortage of data that forced the Claxton et al. study to rely on a large number of strong assumptions to produce their results (Barnsley et al., 2013). In this critique, Barnsley et al. argue that the estimate of £13,000 per QALY is highly uncertain and sensitive to the adoption of plausible alternative assumptions. This was echoed in a journal article by Professor Raftery which compared the Barnsley et al. critique with the Claxton et al. assumptions – NICE’s Cost-Effectiveness Range: Should it be Lowered? His answer was “No” as “the assumptions required are too many and sweeping to be the basis of a major policy change”.
 
The key question of interest to Claxton et al. is: “What is the relationship over time between money spent and QALYs gained in Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England?” If we can estimate the health gain achieved from additional health spending we can better understand the potential health consequences of spending money on other things including new drugs. 
 
However, the £13,000 estimate is calculated without the use of data on QALYs and without information on how expenditure and outcomes vary within PCTs over time.
 
Because there are no QALY data available, the authors have to make a number of assumptions in order to adjust mortality data to account for unobserved quality of life. These assumptions, discussed in detail in the Barnsley et al. critique, require a much more complete understanding of PCT behaviour than is demonstrated in the study.
 
Furthermore, mortality data used for this adjustment are available for only 11 of the 23 Programme Budget Categories (PBCs) in the NHS, and good quality mortality data are available for only four of these. This means that Claxton et al. are forced to carry out a complex extrapolation process involving many assumptions to arrive at the final estimate of the marginal cost of a QALY. The headline figure of £13,000 per QALY is extremely sensitive to variations in these assumptions. An earlier version of the paper, where a slightly different assumption was made, produced a “best” threshold estimate of £18,317 – 42% higher than the current figure.
 
In addition, the authors could not use time-series data to estimate directly how changes to individual PCT budgets over time affect mortality. Instead, they use snapshots of the differences in spending and mortality between different PCTs at a single point in time (cross-sectional data) together with a number of assumptions.
 
Barnsley et al., 2013 argues that, on balance, “an overall downward bias has been introduced … by a number of the assumptions made in its estimation.”
 
In the press release accompanying publication of the Claxton et al. study, co-author Professor Sculpher states that the research demonstrates that estimating the cost-effectiveness with which existing NHS resources are being used “is a scientific question that can be informed by evidence and analysis.” Barnsley et al. agree with this, noting that the study “is complex and impressive… and an important contribution to the debate surrounding the optimal value of the threshold to be applied by NICE” but argue that more work is needed to validate or otherwise some of the key assumptions upon which the estimate relies. They note the additional data the authors of CHERP81 propose to collect and suggest additional approaches.
 
This echoes the abstract of Claxton et al. 2015, which was not in CHERP81. It notes that the “central estimate is based on identifying a preferred analysis at each stage based on the analysis that made the best use of available information, whether or not the assumptions required appeared more reasonable that the other alternatives available … the limitation of currently available data means there is substantial uncertainty associated with the estimate of the overall threshold.” Both Claxton et al. (2015) and the Barnsley et al. critique set out work that can be done to improve on the evidence base to inform policy making on this important issue for the NHS and its patients.
 
  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…

Related News

Group 11119
  • News
  • February 2023

Applications open for MSc Fellowship Programme 2023

Read more
Prize event
  • News
  • January 2023

Professor Aidan Hollis wins first £40,000 OHE Policy Innovation Prize

Read more
  • News
  • July 2022

OHE is Leading Research to Develop an EQ-5D ‘Bolt-on’ for Hearing

Read more
MicrosoftTeams-image-6_0
  • News
  • June 2022

OHE’s 60th Anniversary Party – Celebrating Our Achievements and Looking Forward

Read more
footer_ohe_logo

Leading intellectual authority on global health economics

Sign Up for the OHE News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

Research & Publications

News & Insights

Innovation Policy Prize

Education

Events

About Us

OHE Experts

Contact Us

Sign Up for the OHE News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

The Office of Health Economics (OHE) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (registered number 09848965) and its registered office is at 2nd Floor Goldings House, Hay’s Galleria, 2 Hay’s Lane, London, SE1 2HB.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

© 2023 Website Design

An error has occurred, please try again later.An error has occurred, please try again later.

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in settings.

 Twitter
 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Copy
 Email
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!