NICE Methodological Guidelines and Decision Making in the National Health Service in England and Wales
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) responds to requests by the Department of Health for guidance on the use of selected new and established technologies in the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. This paper asks whether the NICE methodological guidelines help NHS decision makers meet the objectives of maximum health improvements from NHS resources and an equitable availability of technologies. The analytical basis of the guidelines is a comparison of the costs and consequences of new and existing methods of dealing with particular conditions using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We explain why information on the costs and consequences of a particular technology in isolation is insufficient to address issues of efficiency of resource use. We argue that to increase efficiency, decision makers need information on opportunity costs. We show that in the absence of such information decision makers cannot identify the efficient use of resources. Finally we argue that economics provides valid methods for identifying the maximisation of health improvements for a given allocation of resources and we describe an alternative practical approach to this problem. Drawing on the experience of Ontario, Canada where an approach similar to that proposed by NICE has been in use for almost a decade, and recent reports about the consequences of NICE decisions to date, we conclude that instead of increasing the efficiency or equity of the use of NHS resources, NICE methodological guidelines may lead to: (i) uncontrolled increases in NHS expenditures without evidence of any increase in total health improvements; (ii) increased inequities in the availability of services; and (iii) concerns about the sustainability of public funding for new technologies.
KeywordsOpportunity Cost National Health Service Health Improvement Health Gain Unrealistic Assumption
No funding was received to assist in the preparation of this manuscript and the authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.
- 1.House of Commons’ Select Committee. Health: National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2002Google Scholar
- 2.National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufactures and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001Google Scholar
- 8.Taylor R. Generating national guidance: a nice model? Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Strategic Issues in Health Care Management Policy, Finance and Performance in Health Care; 2002 Apr 11–13; St Andrews, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
- 15.Williams A. The economic role of ‘health indicators’. In: Teeling Smith G, editor. Measuring the social benefits of medicine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1983Google Scholar
- 18.Culyer AJ. Health, economics and health economics. In: van der Gaaf J, Perlman M, editors. Health, economics and health economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1981: 3–11Google Scholar
- 19.Maynard A, Sheldon T. Health economics: has it fulfilled its potential? In: Maynard A, Chalmers I, editors. Non-random reflection on health services research. London: BMJ Press, 1997Google Scholar