This Research Paper explores decisions by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that new technologies are to be recommended in line with clinical practice (RiLCP). The authors qualitatively assess documentation associated with RiLCP decisions to create a framework to describe common themes, and assess the level of patient access associated with each RiLCP decision.
Garau, M., Marsden, G., Devlin, N., Amedeo Mazzanti, N. and Profico, A.
Published paper using MCDA to obtain preferences on decision criteria across three stakeholder groups (patients, clinicians and payers) in Italy and to assess the value of obinutuzumab for rituximab-refractory iNHL.
Fischer, A., Hernandez-Villafuerte, K., Latimer, N., and Henshall, C.
This Research Paper reports on a literature review of trials using PFS as a surrogate for OS in oncology between 2012 and 2016; a workshop and interviews involving people from a regulatory agency (EMA) a “payer” organisation (NICE), academics, and from the member organisations comprising POI; and critiques of statistical modelling and economic analysis approaches to surrogacy.
Barnsley, P., Cubi-Molla, P., Fischer, A., and Towse, A.
The quality of decision-making in key public sector bodies dealing with resource allocation is a major determinant of their efficiency. One of the most difficult and contentious areas of decision-making is the way that uncertainty is dealt with.
Feng, Y., Devlin, N., Bateman, A., Zamora, B., and Parkin, D.
EQ-5D data are often summarised by an EQ-5D index, whose distribution for its original version, the EQ-5D-3L, often shows two distinct groups in patient populations, arising from both the distribution of ill health and how the index is constructed. To date, there is little evidence about the distribution of the EQ-5D-5L index. This project aims to:
Brockis, E., Marsden, G., Cole, A., and Devlin, N.
NICE’s decisions exert an influence on the allocation of fixed NHS budgets, but decisions for different types of health interventions (for example drugs and devices) are handled via different ‘programmes’ within NICE.
Feng, Y., Devlin, N., Shah, K., Mulhern, B. and Van Hout, B.
Please note that a revised version of this paper has been accepted for publication and is forthcoming in Health Economics. There are some differences between the value set reported in the Health Economics version and the provisional value set reported in the OHE Research Paper version. Any use of the content of these materials is the sole responsibility of the user.
Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B. and Van Hout, B.
Please note that a revised version of this paper has been accepted for publication and is forthcoming in Health Economics. There are some differences between the value set reported in the Health Economics version and the provisional value set reported in the OHE Research Paper version.
This paper presents a model to capture the behaviour of health sector decision makers when making resource allocation decisions on the level and mix of healthcare production, while taking into consideration the maximum expenditure (budget) allowed by the government or the health system regulator.
The paper seeks to address two perennial policy and practical discussions in the UK National Health Service (NHS) (and elsewhere): how to cope with financial austerity; and the opportunity costs of reimbursing new health technologies.