Discounting and cost‐effectiveness in NICE – stepping back to sort out a confusion

Karl Claxton, Mark Sculpher, Anthony Culyer, Christopher McCabe, Andrew Briggs, Ron Akehurst, Martin Buxton and John Brazier ()

Health Economics, 2006, vol. 15, issue 1, 1-4

Abstract: Brouwer and colleagues [1] argue that the reasons for specifying an equal discount rate for health outcomes and costs in the recent guidance on methods of technology appraisal issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) [2] is both opaque and wrong. They argue that a lower rate should apply to health outcomes like QALYs. It is also claimed that the guidance on discounting represents a step backwards, that is both inconsistent with current theoretical insights and will prejudice the outcome of cost‐effectiveness studies of preventive interventions. The reasoning behind the use of equal discount rates for costs and health outcomes is indeed not well developed in the published guidance. Nor does it reflect the debate that underpinned the guidance. We therefore welcome the opportunity to explain more completely the rationale in the minds of the principal authors of the current guidance. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (18)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1081

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:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:1-4

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().