Seeing the nice side of cost-effectiveness analysis: A qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in nice technology appraisals

被引:60
作者
Bryan, Stirling
Williams, Iestyn
McIver, Shirley
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, HSMC, Hlth Econ Facil, Birmingham B15 2RT, W Midlands, England
[2] Stanford Univ, Ctr Hlth Policy, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[3] Univ Birmingham, Hlth Serv Management Ctr, Birmingham B15 2RT, W Midlands, England
关键词
cost-effectiveness analysis; coverage decisions; qualitative; HEALTH-CARE; ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS; DECISION-MAKING; ASSESSMENTS; PHARMACY;
D O I
10.1002/hec.1133
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
020101 [政治经济学];
摘要
Resource scarcity is the raison d'(e) over cap tre;for the discipline of economics. Thus, the primary purpose of economic analysis is to help decision-makers when addressing problems arising due to the scarcity problem. The research reported here was concerned with how cost-effectiveness information is used by the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence (NICE) in national technology coverage decisions in the UK, and how its impact might be increased. The research followed a qualitative case study methodology with semi-structured interviews, supported by observation and analysis of secondary sources. Our research highlights that the technology appraisal function of NICE represents an important progression for the UK health economics community: new cost-effectiveness work is commissioned for each technology and that work directly informs national health policy. However, accountability in policy decisions necessitates that the information upon which decisions are based (including cost-effectiveness analysis, CEA) is accessible. This was found to be a serious problem and represents one of the main ongoing challenges. Other issues highlighted include perceived weaknesses in analysis methods and the poor alignment between the health maximisation objectives assumed in economic analyses and the range of other objectives facing decision-makers in reality. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:179 / 193
页数:15
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? [J].
Barbour, RS .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7294) :1115-1117
[2]
Bryan S, 1998, J Health Serv Res Policy, V3, P108
[3]
Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? [J].
Cookson, R ;
McDaid, D ;
Maynard, A .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7315) :743-745
[4]
Daniels NormanJames E. Sabin., 2002, SETTING LIMITS FAIRL
[6]
Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the UK [J].
Drummond, M ;
Cooke, J ;
Walley, T .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1997, 45 (04) :583-595
[7]
Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom - Phase II - Is health economics 'for good or evil?' [J].
Duthie, T ;
Trueman, P ;
Chancellor, J ;
Diez, L .
HEALTH POLICY, 1999, 46 (02) :143-157
[8]
Do health-care decision makers find economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group research in UK health authorities [J].
Hoffmann, C ;
Stoykova, BA ;
Nixon, J ;
Glanville, JM ;
Misso, K ;
Drummond, MF .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2002, 5 (02) :71-78
[9]
HUTTON J, 2005, VALUE HEALTH, V5, P65
[10]
The impact of health economics on healthcare delivery - A primary care perspective [J].
Kernick, DP .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2000, 18 (04) :311-315