We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items 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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) conducts health technology assessment to assess cost-effectiveness and budget impact. For treatments provided in vials, NICE often considers how treatments are dispensed and adjusts the economic modeling costs accordingly. Vial sharing and wastage are likely familiar concepts to stakeholders, but the same consideration is not consistently given to tablet packs.
Methods
Using anonymized examples, NICE assessed potential implications for cost-effectiveness and budget impact of different methods for modeling oral treatments. Firstly, the cost-effectiveness and budget impact were calculated based on a cost per milligram (mg) of treatment. The per mg cost was multiplied by the number of mg for each dose and did not account for the number of tablets or packs required. Using the same example, the cost per tablet was calculated by rounding each dose to the nearest whole tablet mg dose. Finally, the example was costed based on whole packs, which included the cost for any wasted tablets.
Results
The anonymized examples showed that costing per mg versus per tablet versus per pack can have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness and budget impact. One example showed that treatment costs per 28 days could increase by over GBP1,000 (USD1,271) when costing per whole pack compared to per mg. This led to a difference in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of nearly GBP10,000 (USD12,716). Another example demonstrated a potential increase in budget impact of nearly GBP1 million (USD1.27 million) per year. This magnitude of impact on cost-effectiveness and budget has the potential to change health technology assessment decisions and affordability in the United Kingdom.
Conclusions
NICE is assessing an increasing number of oral treatments provided as tablet packs, not vials. This highlights the need to consider how pack sharing and wastage should be consistently considered in economic modeling. Developing standardized methods for modeling oral treatments would help ensure consistency of cost calculations and better reflect how treatments are dispensed in clinical practice.