Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 15
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Dixon, Padraig Chamberlain, Charlotte and Hollingworth, William 2016. Did It Matter That the Cancer Drugs Fund Was Not NICE? A Retrospective Review. Value in Health,


    Dakin, Helen Devlin, Nancy Feng, Yan Rice, Nigel O'Neill, Phill and Parkin, David 2015. The Influence of Cost-Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions. Health Economics, Vol. 24, Issue. 10, p. 1256.


    Smith, Neale Mitton, Craig Cornelissen, Evelyn Gibson, Jennifer and Peacock, Stuart 2012. Using evaluation theory in priority setting and resource allocation. Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 26, Issue. 5, p. 655.


    Flitcroft, Kathy Gillespie, James Salkeld, Glenn Carter, Stacy and Trevena, Lyndal 2011. Getting evidence into policy: The need for deliberative strategies?. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 72, Issue. 7, p. 1039.


    Ruggeri, Matteo Cicchetti, Americo and Gasbarrini, Antonio 2011. The cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies against HBV in Italy. Health Policy, Vol. 102, Issue. 1, p. 72.


    Wilmot, Stephen 2011. Evidence, ethics and inclusion: a broader base for NICE. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 111.


    Brunetti, Massimo Ruiz, Francis Lord, Joanne Pregno, Silvia and Oxman, Andrew D. 2010. Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics.


    McDaid, David and Sassi, Franco 2010. Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics.


    Cicchetti, A. Ruggeri, M. Gasbarrini, A. Cazzato, A. Di Gioacchino, G. Navarra, P. Cauda, R. and Romano, G. 2009. Valutazione costo-efficacia del percorso dei pazienti a rischio di epatite B sottoposti a test anti-HBV. PharmacoEconomics Italian Research Articles, Vol. 11, Issue. 2, p. 105.


    COOKSON, RICHARD DRUMMOND, MIKE and WEATHERLY, HELEN 2009. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Economics, Policy and Law, Vol. 4, Issue. 02, p. 231.


    Johnson, Ana P. Sikich, Nancy J. Evans, Gerald Evans, William Giacomini, Mita Glendining, Murray Krahn, Murray Levin, Les Oh, Paul and Perera, Charmaine 2009. Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 25, Issue. 02, p. 141.


    Cicchetti, A. Ruggeri, M. Gitto, L. and Mennini, F. S. 2008. Analisi economica per l’estensione della vaccinazione contro l’influenza agli individui di età 50–64: risparmi sociali e analisi di Budget Impact. PharmacoEconomics Italian Research Articles, Vol. 10, Issue. 3, p. 137.


    Milewa, Timothy 2008. Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom. Health Policy, Vol. 85, Issue. 3, p. 356.


    Rogowski, Wolf H Hartz, Susanne C and John, Jürgen H 2008. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 8, Issue. 1,


    Cicchetti, A. Manca, A. and Ruggeri, M. 2007. L’utilizzo di modelli decisionali per le valutazioni economiche dei farmaci in Italia: stato dell’arte e prospettive future. PharmacoEconomics Italian Research Articles, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 59.


    ×

NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process

  • Anthony J. Culyer (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1744133106004026
  • Published online: 01 July 2006
Abstract

This paper seeks to test 12 conjectures about the predicted use of deliberative processes by applying them to the technology assessment procedures used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. A deliberative process is one that elicits and combines evidence of different kinds and from different sources in order to develop guidance – in the present case, guidance for a health care system. A deliberative process entails the integration of three kinds of evidence: scientific context-free evidence about the general clinical potential of a technology, scientific context-sensitive evidence about particular evidence in realistic scenarios, and colloquial evidence to fit context-free scientific evidence into a context and to supply the best evidence short of scientific evidence to fill in any relevant gaps. It is shown that NICE's appraisals procedures and, in particular, its approach to cost effectiveness, entail both the weighing of each of these types of evidence and can be seen as rational responses to the 12 conjectures.

Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mail: aculyer@iwh.on.ca
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? *
×