Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 12, Number 1 > Pp. 56-58

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Culyer, A. Articles by Brazier, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Perspective

Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Anthony Culyer, Christopher McCabe, Andrew Briggs, Karl Claxton, Martin Buxton, Ron Akehurst, Mark Sculpher, John Brazier

Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, York, UK; Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK; Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, London, UK; ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK; ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

There has been much speculation about whether the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has, or ought to have, a 'threshold' figure for the cost of an additional quality-adjusted life-year above which a technology will not be recommended for use. We argue that it is not constitutionally appropriate for NICE to set such a threshold, which is properly the business of parliament. Instead, the task for NICE is as a 'threshold-searcher' – to seek to identify an optimal threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, at the ruling rate of expenditure, that is consistent with the aim of the health service to maximize population health. This will involve the identification of technologies currently made available by the National Health Service that have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the threshold, and alternative uses for those resources in the shape of technologies not currently provided that fall below the threshold.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Towse Should NICE's threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes BMJ, January 26, 2009; 338(jan26_2): b181 - b181. [Full Text]

				M. Soares and J. C Dumville Economic evaluation of healthcare technologies using primary research Evid. Based Nurs., July 1, 2008; 11(3): 67 - 71. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Claxton, A. Briggs, M. J Buxton, A. J Culyer, C. McCabe, S. Walker, and M. J Sculpher Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ, February 2, 2008; 336(7638): 251 - 254. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Walker, S. Palmer, and M. Sculpher The role of NICE technology appraisal in NHS rationing Br. Med. Bull., April 4, 2007; (2007) ldm007v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]