BMJ  2007;334:936-938 (5 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39190.420081.94

Analysis

NICE appraisals should be everybody's business

Jane Wells, public health physician1, Claire Cheong-Leen, head of public health policy and development2

1 Berkshire West Primary Care Trust, Newbury RG14 1BZ , 2 Thames Valley Priority Setting Unit, Oxford OX4 2GX

Correspondence to: J Wells Jane.Wells@berkshire.nhs.uk

When Newbury and Community Primary Care Trust appealed against NICE's decision on Herceptin, it was the first to do so. Jane Wells and Claire Cheong-Leen explain the process and why other trusts should make their voices heard in appraisals of new treatments

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Publicly funded health services should aim to provide the best possible health care within the available budget. With finite resources and demand for health care growing both in quantity and cost, they are faced with increasingly difficult decisions about the services they should provide. They must balance their responsibilities to the whole population and to individual patients; consider the need for preventive, therapeutic, and long term care; weigh the merits of new against established treatments; and deliver the services they wish to provide as well as those that are mandatory. In England, primary care trusts are mainly responsible for these decisions. Following the latest NHS reorganisation there are now 152 primary care trusts, each of which commissions health services for a population of up to about 600 000.

NHS provision is fundamentally influenced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which produces national guidance on health technologies, . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No
James Raftery
BMJ 2009 338: b185. [Extract] [Full Text]

For patient or population?
Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2007 334: 0. [Extract] [Full Text]

New treatments for neovascular acute macular degeneration
Usha Chakravarthy and Jennifer I Lim
BMJ 2007 334: 269-270. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

How much will Herceptin really cost?
Ann Barrett, Tom Roques, Matthew Small, and Richard D Smith
BMJ 2006 333: 1118-1120. [Full Text] [PDF]

Lasting damage from the trastuzumab storm
Angela Raffle
BMJ 2006 333: 761. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Raftery, J. (2009). Should NICE's threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No. BMJ 338: b185-b185 [Full text]  
  • Minhas, R., Patel, K. C. (2008). From rationing to rational: the evolving status of NICE. JRSM 101: 436-442 [Full text]  
  • Klein, R. (2007). Rationing in the NHS. BMJ 334: 1068-1069 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

UK OFT pricing proposal - a necessity to fund new drugs or new indications
Brian Barr Godman, et al.
bmj.com, 9 May 2007 [Full text]
Dealing with opportunity cost – a New Zealand perspective on trastuzumab funding
R Scott Metcalfe, et al.
bmj.com, 11 May 2007 [Full text]



Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student 

BMJ