A Review of Issues Affecting the Efficiency of Decision Making in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process

M. J. Walton (), J. O’Connor, C. Carroll, L. Claxton and R. Hodgson
Additional contact information
M. J. Walton: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York
J. O’Connor: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York
C. Carroll: University of Sheffield
L. Claxton: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York
R. Hodgson: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2019, vol. 3, issue 3, No 14, 403-410

Abstract: Abstract Background Escalating demands upon the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE’s) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) programme require a 2.5-times increase upon 2015 capacity by 2020. This additional strain on committee resources threatens to compromise the rigour of the STA process. In 2018, NICE introduced changes to the appraisal process, aiming to expedite final decisions, including consultation opportunities prior to the company’s evidence submission, a ‘Technical Engagement’ stage prior to the first committee meeting, and powers for committee chairs to recommend technologies without a second formal meeting. Objective This study reviews recent STAs and aims to understand why appraisals require multiple meetings, and whether recent reforms can address the underlying issues. Methods NICE STAs published between January 2010 and January 2018 were reviewed, excluding updates or re-considerations. Data on cost, clinical, and decision-making outcomes from 146 appraisals were extracted and analysed thematically. Results Drugs for advanced cancers were least likely to be recommended (28/43 [65.1%] vs 71/74 [96%] for non-cancer) and took longer (2.36 meetings for a final decision vs 1.97 for non-cancer). The academic review increased upon the company’s base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio by a median of 32.7%. Eighty-four technologies (57.5%) received a negative preliminary recommendation, deferring a final decision by an average of 142 days. Of these, 85.1% were not considered cost-effective. Uncertainty in economic (34.3%) and clinical (22.3%) data also prevented a positive decision. The majority (72.6% [61/84]) of negative preliminary decisions were overturned following further committee discussion; important considerations were Patient Access Schemes, decision optimisation, and the Cancer Drugs Fund. Conclusions Value considerations are the primary driver of negative preliminary recommendations. It is unclear if new opportunities for additional interaction between NICE, review groups, and manufacturers will meaningfully improve the efficiency of the appraisal process, particularly given the proportion of technologies requiring further committee discussion for decision optimisation or admission into the CDF.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-018-0113-0 Abstract (text/html)

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:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0113-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0113-0

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

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