Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared

被引:41
作者
Cairns, J [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ London London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, London WC1E 7HT, England
关键词
health technology appraisal; cost-effectiveness advice;
D O I
10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.006
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
There is wide acceptance that cost-effectiveness is a relevant consideration when deciding which treatments to make available in publicly funded health services. An unresolved issue concerns the timing and the extent of such evaluations. The United Kingdom provides examples of two distinct approaches. The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) provides guidance to the NHS in Scotland based on a rapid early review of the evidence. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provides guidance to the NHS in England and Wales based on a later, more extensive review of the evidence. This paper explores how the difference in approach affects the role of the pharmaceutical industry, clinical experts and other stakeholders. It compares the guidance produced when both bodies have evaluated the same medicines. It addresses the general question of when to assess the cost-effectiveness of medicines. It concludes that there are important differences between the approaches of SMC and NICE, relating primarily to the timing of the review of evidence on clinical and cost-effectiveness. The difference in timing means that the activities of the two bodies are to a large extent complementary. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:134 / 143
页数:10
相关论文
共 12 条
  • [1] The 'NICE' approach to technology assessment: An economics perspective
    Birch S.
    Gafni A.
    [J]. Health Care Management Science, 2004, 7 (1) : 35 - 41
  • [2] BLACK C, 2003, IMPACT EVALUATION RE
  • [3] *DEP HLTH, 2004, IMPL NICE GUID
  • [4] Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis
    Devlin, N
    Parkin, D
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2004, 13 (05) : 437 - 452
  • [5] Issues for countries considering introducing the "fourth hurdle":: The case of Hungary
    Gulácsi, L
    Boncz, I
    Drummond, M
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2004, 20 (03) : 337 - 341
  • [6] House of Commons Health Committee, 2005, INFL PHARM IND 4 REP
  • [7] National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004, GUID TECHN APPR PROC
  • [8] National Institute of Health and Sciences (NICE), 2004, GUID METH TECHN APPR
  • [9] *SCOTT EX HLTH DEP, 2003, 60 NHS HDL SCOTT EX
  • [10] *SCOTT MED CONS, 2003, ANN REP 2002 2003