Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

NICE’s Discounting Review: Clear Thinking on Rational Revision Meets Obstacle of Industrial Interests

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently published a review of discounting practice and theory as part of a consultation on its current methods guidelines. The review examines the case for revision or retention of current methods. The changes considered include eliminating favourable rates in certain special cases and the reduction of the base-case rate for costs and health effects from 3.5 to 1.5%. The review also notes the potential need to reduce the cost-effectiveness threshold to accommodate a discount rate reduction, explaining that an agreement between the UK government and the pharmaceutical industry proscribes changing NICE’s threshold range until the end of 2023. We believe NICE should be commended for a useful overview of the existing literature and relevant issues. We firmly endorse NICE’s view that favourable discount rates are not a good way to apply a preference for certain interventions. Similarly, we support the option of reducing the discount rate to 1.5%, which better accords with real government borrowing costs. We suggest further work to clarify the appropriate theoretical basis for the NICE’s social discount rate and the sensitivity of the threshold to changes in discounting. The prospects of a necessary discount rate reduction appear to depend on whether a threshold reduction can be achieved within NICE’s current range or if the range itself must be revised downwards. NICE has usefully informed the debate around discount rates. Ultimately, the path to a methodologically consistent and evidence-based revision of discounting depends on whether NICE needs to adjust the threshold too and if it is free to do so.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NICE. Reviewing our methods for health technology evaluation: consultation. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/chte-methods-consultation. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  2. NICE. CHTE methods review: Discounting. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/chte-methods-consultation/NICE-methods-of-health-technology-evaluation-case-for-change.docx. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  3. O’Mahony JF, Paulden M. NICE’s selective application of differential discounting: ambiguous, inconsistent, and unjustified. Value Health. 2014;17(5):493–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed 17 Dec 2020.

  5. Paulden M, Round J, O’Mahony JF. Direct equity weights. In: Cookson R, Griffin S, Norheim OF, Culyer AJ, editors. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: quantifying health equity impacts and trade-offs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 275–300.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Attema AE, Brouwer WB, Claxton K. Discounting in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(7):745–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. HM Treasury. The green book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation 2018. HM Treasury, London. 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  8. Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, et al. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011;20(1):2–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Paulden M, Claxton K. Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health. Health Econ. 2012;21(5):612–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Drupp MA, Freeman MC, Groom B, et al. Discounting disentangled. Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2018;10(4):109–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Paulden M, Galvann V, Chakraborty S et al. Discounting and the evaluation of health care programs. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2016. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/CP0008_Economic_Evaluation_Guidelines_Discount_Rate_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  12. CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada; 4th Edition. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2016. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  13. Bank of England. Monthly average yield from British Government Securities, 5 year Real Zero Coupon. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/FromShowColumns.asp?Travel=&searchText=IUMASRZC. Accessed 11 Dec 2020.

  14. Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D, et al. Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):239–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Mahony JF, de Kok IM, van Rosmalen J, et al. Practical implications of differential discounting in cost-effectiveness analyses with varying numbers of cohorts. Value Health. 2011;14(4):438–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pandey H, Paulden M, McCabe C. Theoretical models of the cost-effectiveness threshold, value assessment, and health care system sustainability. The Institute of Health Economics & University of Alberta. 2018. https://www.ihe.ca/download/theoretical_models_of_the_cost_effectiveness_threshold_value_assessment_and_health_care_system_sustainability.pdf. [Accessed 20 Nov 2020].

  19. DH and ABPI. The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 2014. Department of Health and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. 2013. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/675465/The_pharmaceutical_price_regulation_scheme_2014.pdf. [Accessed 20 Nov 2020].

  20. DHSC and ABPI. The 2019 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access. In: The Department of Health & Social Care and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761834/voluntary-scheme-for-branded-medicines-pricing-and-access-chapters-and-glossary.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  21. DHSC. Cost-effectiveness methodology for vaccination programmes: consultation on the Cost-Effectiveness Methodology for Vaccination Programmes and Procurement (CEMIPP) Report. Department of Health & Social Care. 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/707847/cemipp-consultation-document.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  22. DHSC. Cost-effectiveness methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurements (CEMIPP) The government’s decision and summary of consultation response Department of Health and Social Care. 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807856/CEMIPP_Consultation_Response_1.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  23. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M et al. Methods for the estimation of the nice cost effectiveness threshold. The University of York. 2013. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHE%20Research%20Paper%2081%20(Jan%202013).pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  24. O’Mahony JF, Paulden M. Appraising the cost-effectiveness of vaccines in the UK: insights from the Department of Health Consultation on the revision of methods guidelines. Vaccine. 2019;37(21):2831–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, et al. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24(10):1256–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Martin S, Rice N, Smith PC. Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data. J Health Econ. 2008;27(4):826–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: First Report of Session 2007–08. The Stationery Office Limited. 2007. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhealth/27/27.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  28. NICE. Our principles: the principles that guide the development of NICE guidance and standards. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/who-we-are/our-principles. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  29. NHS. The NHS Constitution. 2015. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480482/NHS_Constitution_WEB.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.

  30. Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, et al. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990–2012. Value Health. 2015;18(2):271–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James F. O’Mahony.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research was not supported by any funding source.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

JOM, MP and CMC have no conflicts or competing interests to declare.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

JOM drafted the initial manuscript. MP and CMC edited the draft. JOM finalised the manuscript and prepared it for submission.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Mahony, J.F., Paulden, M. & McCabe, C. NICE’s Discounting Review: Clear Thinking on Rational Revision Meets Obstacle of Industrial Interests. PharmacoEconomics 39, 139–146 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00990-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00990-8

Navigation