Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context

  • Karin H. Cerri (a1), Martin Knapp (a2) and Jose-Luis Fernandez (a3)
Abstract
Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provides guidance to the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales on funding and use of new technologies. This study examined the impact of evidence, process and context factors on NICE decisions in 2004–2009. A data set of NICE decisions pertaining to pharmaceutical technologies was created, including 32 variables extracted from published information. A three-category outcome variable was used, defined as the decision to ‘recommend’, ‘restrict’ or ‘not recommend’ a technology. With multinomial logistic regression, the relative contribution of explanatory variables on NICE decisions was assessed. A total of 65 technology appraisals (118 technologies) were analysed. Of the technologies, 27% were recommended, 58% were restricted and 14% were not recommended by NICE for NHS funding. The multinomial model showed significant associations (p ⩽ 0.10) between NICE outcome and four variables: (i) demonstration of statistical superiority of the primary endpoint in clinical trials by the appraised technology; (ii) the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); (iii) the number of pharmaceuticals appraised within the same appraisal; and (iv) the appraisal year. Results confirm the value of a comprehensive and multivariate approach to understanding NICE decision making. New factors affecting NICE decision making were identified, including the effect of clinical superiority, and the effect of process and socio-economic factors.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Corresponding author
*Correspondence to: Dr Karin H. Cerri, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. Email: k.h.cerri@lse.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

M. J. Al , T. Feenstra W. B. Brouwer (2004), ‘Decision makers’ views on health care objectives and budget constraints: results from a pilot study’, Health Policy, 70(1): 3348.

M. Barbieri , N. Hawkins M. Sculpher (2009), ‘Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems’ decision-making about the funding of health technologies’, Value Health, 12(2): 193201.

S. Bryan , I. Williams S. McIver (2007), ‘Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals’, Health Economics, 16(2): 179193.

M. J. Buxton (2005), ‘How much are health-care systems prepared to pay to produce a QALY?’, European Journal of Health Economics, 6: 285287.

F. M. Clement , A. Harris , J. J. Li , K. Yong , K. M. Lee B. J. Manns (2009), ‘Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada’, JAMA, 302(13): 14371443.

H. A. Dakin , N. J. Devlin I. A. O. Odeyemi (2006), ‘“Yes”, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making’, Health Policy, 77: 352367.

N. Devlin D. Parkin (2004), ‘Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis’, Health Economics, 13(5): 437452.

P. Littlejohns , S. Garner , N. Doyle , F. Macbeth , D. Barnett C. Longson (2009), ‘10 years of NICE: still growing and still controversial’, Lancet Oncology, 10(4): 417424.

A. R. Mason M. F. Drummond (2009), ‘Public funding of new cancer drugs: Is NICE getting nastier?’, European Journal of Cancer, 45(7): 11881192.

P. O'Neill N. J. Devlin (2010), ‘An analysis of NICE's ‘restricted’ (or ‘optimized’) decisions’, Pharmacoeconomics, 28(11): 987993.

D. K. Owens (1998), ‘Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses’, JGIM, 13: 716717.

J. Raftery (2006), ‘Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999–2005’, BMJ, 332(7552): 12661268.

J. Ross (1995), ‘The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers’ perceptions’, Health Policy, 31(2): 103110.

M. Summerhayes P. Catchpole (2006), ‘Has NICE been nice to cancer?’, European Journal of Cancer, 42(17): 28812886.

L. Vuorenkoski , H. Toiviainen E. Hemminki (2008), ‘Decision-making in priority setting for medicines – a review of empirical studies’, Health Policy, 86(1): 19.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Health Economics, Policy and Law
  • ISSN: 1744-1331
  • EISSN: 1744-134X
  • URL: /core/journals/health-economics-policy-and-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 26
Total number of PDF views: 174 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 364 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.