Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1133–1142 | Cite as

Economic Evaluation and Decision Making in the UK

  • Martin J. Buxton
Conference Paper

Abstract

This article reviews the development of economic evaluation of health technologies in the UK and its impact on decision making. After a long period of limited impact from studies mainly carried out as academic exercises, the advent of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 1999 provided a transparent decision-making context where economic evaluation plays a central role. This article reviews some of the key characteristics about the way NICE works, for example, the way NICE has defined the form of analysis that it requires, reflecting its objective of maximising health gain (QALYs) from the predetermined and limited UK NHS budget.

Two broad areas of widespread concern are noted. The first relates to the cost-effectiveness thresholds that NICE uses and the basis for them. The second is the patchy implementation of NICE guidance and the possible reasons for this. But even within the UK, NICE is the exception in making extensive and explicit use of economic evaluation and this article goes on to suggest that if there is to be a more widespread and consistent use of economic evaluation at both central and local levels, then health economists and others need to address three issues.

The first is to be clear about what is the correct conceptual basis for determining the cost-effectiveness threshold and then to ensure that NICE has the empirical evidence to set it appropriately. The second is to recognise that even using the limited view of costs adopted by NICE, economic evaluations imply temporal and cross-service budgetary flexibility that the NHS locally does not in practice enjoy. The third issue is that with academic pressures for ever-increasing sophistication of ‘state of the art’ economic evaluation analysis, the NHS has more and more precise understanding of the cost effectiveness of just a few new technologies and little or no analysis of most. This limits the value of the former by reducing further the scope for appropriately disinvesting from cost-ineffective technologies to meet the additional costs of investing in cost-effective new ones.

Whilst NICE stands out as an example of a context where high-quality economic evaluation plays a major role in decision making, the process is far from perfect and certainly is not representative of the use made of economic evaluation by the NHS as a whole. Health economists need to engage with the public and the health service to better understand their perspectives, rather than focusing on academic concerns relating to details of theory and analytical method.

Keywords

Cost Effectiveness Economic Evaluation Riluzole Technology Appraisal Appraisal Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editors of this issue, colleagues in the Health Economics Research Group (HERG) and participants at the Conference in Honour of Bernie O’Brien, including those quite hostile to some of my conclusions, for useful comments on the draft of this paper. Bernie would have enjoyed the lively exchanges. My conclusions have not changed but hopefully the case is now better argued!

The work behind this paper was in part supported by a Programme Grant to HERG from the Department of Health’s Policy Research Programme, but all views should be attributed to the author alone. The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Pole JD. Economic aspects of screening for disease. In: McKeown T, editor. Screening in medical care. London: CUP and Nuffield PHT, 1969Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pole JD. The economic of mass radiography. In: Hauser MM, editor. The economics of medical care. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1972Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brassard P, Steensma C, Cadieux L, et al. Evaluation of a school-based tuberculosis-screening program and associate investigation targeting recently immigrated children in a low-burden country. Pediatrics 2006 Feb; 117: e148–e156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond MF. Principles of economic evaluation in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buxton M, Acheson R, Caine N, et al. Costs and benefits of the heart transplant programmes at Harefield and Papworth Hospitals. London: HMSO, 1985Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drummond M, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4): 583–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buxton M. Heart transplantation in the UK: the decision-making context of an economic evaluation. In: Stocking B, editor. Expensive health technologies: regulatory and administrative mechanisms in Europe. Commission of the European Communities, Health Services Research Series, no. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stowe K, editor. On caring for the national health. London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1988Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, et al. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst 2003 Jan; 1: 2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hurst J. The impact of health economics on health policy in England, and the impact of health policy on health economics. Health Econ 1998; 7: S47–S62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, et al. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom: phase II: Is health economics ‘for good or evil’? Health Policy 1999; 46: 143–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg J-MG, on behalf of the EUROMET group. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. Health Policy 2000; 52: 179–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Birkett DJ, Mitchell AS, McManus P. A cost-effectiveness approach to drug subsidy and pricing in Australia. Health Aff 2001; 20 (3): 104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    PausJenssen AM, Singer PA, Detsky AS. Ontario’s formulary committee: how recommendations are made. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (4): 285–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk [Accessed 2006 Aug 14]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Appleby J, Devlin N. British health economists: is what they do what they should be doing? CES/HESG Workshop; 2004 Jan 14–16; ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001 Dec; 323: 1300–1303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raftery J. Review of NICE’s recommendations, 1999–2005. BMJ 2006 May; 332: 1266–1268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hill S, Garattini S, van Loenhout, et al. Technology appraisal programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence: a review by WHO. World Health Organization, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ page.aspx?o=85797 [Accessed 2006 Aug 25]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. Epub 2006 Sep 7Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guides to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004 Jul; 329: 224–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13: 437–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IAO. “Yes”, “no” or “yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy 2006; 77: 352–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, et al. What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. BMJ 2004 Oct; 329: 999–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Minister of State’s letter on implementation of NICE guidance. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buxton MJ. How much are health-care systems prepared to pay to produce a QALY? Eur J Health Econ 2005; 4: 285–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Culyer AJ, McCabe C, Briggs AH, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy. In pressGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Birch S, Gafni A. Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1121–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maynard A, Street A. Seven years of feast, seven years of famine: boom to bust in the NHS? BMJ 2006 Apr; 332: 906–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Brien BJ, Gersten K, Willan AR, et al. Is there a kink in consumers’ threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Econ 2002; 11: 175–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Severens JL, Brunenberg DEM, Fenwick EAL, et al. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a reluctance to lose. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1207–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dowie J. No room for kinkiness in a public healthcare system. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1203–1205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maynard A, Bloor K, Freemantle N. Challenges for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. BMJ 2004; 329: 227–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Buxton MJ, Akehurst R. How NICE is the UK’s fast-track system? Scrip 2006 Mar: 24–25Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Trastuzumab for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. NICE appraisal guidance 107 [online]. London: NICE, 2006. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=TA107guidance [Accessed 2006 Aug 25]Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: the Scottish medicines consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared. Health Policy 2006; 76: 134–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001; 32: 743–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Economics Research GroupBrunel UniversityUxbridge, MiddlesexUK

Personalised recommendations