Economic Evaluation and Decision Making in the UK
- 354 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCost Effectiveness Economic Evaluation Riluzole Technology Appraisal Appraisal Committee
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.
- 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.Pole JD. The economic of mass radiography. In: Hauser MM, editor. The economics of medical care. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1972Google Scholar
- 4.Drummond MF. Principles of economic evaluation in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Stowe K, editor. On caring for the national health. London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1988Google Scholar
- 15.National Institute for Clinical Excellence [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk [Accessed 2006 Aug 14]Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guides to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
- 26.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Minister of State’s letter on implementation of NICE guidance. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
- 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
- 35.Buxton MJ, Akehurst R. How NICE is the UK’s fast-track system? Scrip 2006 Mar: 24–25Google Scholar
- 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