NICE, in Confidence: An Assessment of Redaction to Obscure Confidential Information in Single Technology Appraisals by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Ash Bullement, Matthew Taylor, Sam Thomas McMordie, Errol Waters and Anthony James Hatswell ()
Additional contact information
Ash Bullement: Delta Hat
Matthew Taylor: York Health Economics Consortium, University of York
Sam Thomas McMordie: Delta Hat
Errol Waters: York Health Economics Consortium, University of York
Anthony James Hatswell: Delta Hat

PharmacoEconomics, 2019, vol. 37, issue 11, No 10, 1383-1390

Abstract: Abstract Introduction Health technology assessment (HTA) aims to provide a transparent framework within which normative judgements can be applied for decision making. Such transparency enables the public to understand the rationale for decision making, but conflicts with companies being able to offer commercially sensitive discounts. We investigated how to balance these conflicting ideals. Methods National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) submissions were reviewed for products with an approved, simple Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount. The approach to censoring was noted (e.g. total cost and clinical outcomes redacted). Submissions were then assessed for transparency (i.e. whether the decision appeared justifiable given the available information) and confidentiality (i.e. whether the PAS discount could be ‘back calculated’). Results One hundred and eighteen products have an approved commercial arrangement, of which 110 have simple PAS discounts considered within the NICE Single Technology Appraisal programme. A definitive incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was presented within final NICE guidance in only 20 appraisals. Documentation for seven appraisals allowed for the straightforward ‘back calculation’ of PAS discounts. Furthermore, a large amount of information was censored as academic-in-confidence and remains so many years later. Conclusion Appropriate redaction ensures discounts remain confidential, yet maintains the transparency of the HTA decisions made. Complete redaction does not allow for transparent, justifiable decision making. However, redacting ‘enough’ information to preclude direct estimation of discounts provides a means of maintaining both transparency and confidentiality. This study demonstrates a lack of consensus regarding presentation of results, and the importance of appropriate redaction.

Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00818-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00818-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00818-0

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().