Should cost effectiveness analyses for NICE always consider future unrelated medical costs?

Pieter van Baal, Alec Morton, Werner Brouwer, David Meltzer, Sarah Davis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When developing guidance on the use of new technologies within the NHS, NICE recommends the use of cost effectiveness. Specifically, an intervention is deemed cost effective by NICE if ‘its health benefits are greater than the opportunity costs of programmes displaced to fund the new technology, in the context of a fixed NHS budget. In other words, the general consequences for the wider group of patients in the NHS are considered alongside the effects for those patients who may directly benefit from the technology.’ We argue that the technical guidelines for health technology assessment used by NICE should change given this definition of cost effectiveness. The point at issue is the handling of “unrelated future medical costs”.
LanguageEnglish
Article numberj5096
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume359
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Technology
Costs and Cost Analysis
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Insurance Benefits
Budgets
Financial Management
Guidelines
Cost-effectiveness
Medical costs
Opportunity cost
Health benefits
Guidance
Health technology assessment

Keywords

  • medical economics
  • medical costs
  • NICE guidance

Cite this

van Baal, Pieter ; Morton, Alec ; Brouwer, Werner ; Meltzer, David ; Davis, Sarah. / Should cost effectiveness analyses for NICE always consider future unrelated medical costs?. In: British Medical Journal. 2017 ; Vol. 359.
@article{5745dd922ace45008a3a736413f0813b,
title = "Should cost effectiveness analyses for NICE always consider future unrelated medical costs?",
abstract = "When developing guidance on the use of new technologies within the NHS, NICE recommends the use of cost effectiveness. Specifically, an intervention is deemed cost effective by NICE if ‘its health benefits are greater than the opportunity costs of programmes displaced to fund the new technology, in the context of a fixed NHS budget. In other words, the general consequences for the wider group of patients in the NHS are considered alongside the effects for those patients who may directly benefit from the technology.’ We argue that the technical guidelines for health technology assessment used by NICE should change given this definition of cost effectiveness. The point at issue is the handling of “unrelated future medical costs”.",
keywords = "medical economics, medical costs, NICE guidance",
author = "{van Baal}, Pieter and Alec Morton and Werner Brouwer and David Meltzer and Sarah Davis",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.j5096",
language = "English",
volume = "359",
journal = "BMJ",
issn = "0959-8138",

}

Should cost effectiveness analyses for NICE always consider future unrelated medical costs? / van Baal, Pieter; Morton, Alec; Brouwer, Werner; Meltzer, David; Davis, Sarah.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 359, j5096 , 10.11.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should cost effectiveness analyses for NICE always consider future unrelated medical costs?

AU - van Baal, Pieter

AU - Morton, Alec

AU - Brouwer, Werner

AU - Meltzer, David

AU - Davis, Sarah

PY - 2017/11/10

Y1 - 2017/11/10

N2 - When developing guidance on the use of new technologies within the NHS, NICE recommends the use of cost effectiveness. Specifically, an intervention is deemed cost effective by NICE if ‘its health benefits are greater than the opportunity costs of programmes displaced to fund the new technology, in the context of a fixed NHS budget. In other words, the general consequences for the wider group of patients in the NHS are considered alongside the effects for those patients who may directly benefit from the technology.’ We argue that the technical guidelines for health technology assessment used by NICE should change given this definition of cost effectiveness. The point at issue is the handling of “unrelated future medical costs”.

AB - When developing guidance on the use of new technologies within the NHS, NICE recommends the use of cost effectiveness. Specifically, an intervention is deemed cost effective by NICE if ‘its health benefits are greater than the opportunity costs of programmes displaced to fund the new technology, in the context of a fixed NHS budget. In other words, the general consequences for the wider group of patients in the NHS are considered alongside the effects for those patients who may directly benefit from the technology.’ We argue that the technical guidelines for health technology assessment used by NICE should change given this definition of cost effectiveness. The point at issue is the handling of “unrelated future medical costs”.

KW - medical economics

KW - medical costs

KW - NICE guidance

UR - http://www.bmj.com/archive

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.j5096

DO - 10.1136/bmj.j5096

M3 - Article

VL - 359

JO - BMJ

T2 - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 0959-8138

M1 - j5096

ER -