BMJ  2007;335:735 (13 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.39360.379664.BE

Letters

NICE transparency

Let cost effectiveness models be open to scrutiny

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

In light of the recent ruling over the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) decision on donezepil,^{1 2} we wish to comment on the adversarial system of drug evaluation and the inadequacy of NICE providing read-only versions of cost effectiveness models for the purposes of reviewing their decisions.

The assertion that "[NICE] is not in a position to deal with the reality of restrictions being placed on [the models] by those who supply them"² is not defensible. NICE could specify terms and conditions to technology assessment groups (TAGs) to allow full disclosure of what, after all, is publicly funded research. Indeed, they should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, with non-disclosure acceptable only when in the public interest.

Recently, the Sheffield TAG published a correction to a cost effectiveness model for multiple sclerosis treatment caused by a coding error.³ This model underpinned a high profile and novel . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ Pharmatelligence LLP, Cardiff MediCentre, Cardiff, ² Department of Haematological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, ³ Department of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff

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

Related Article

Problems with UK government's risk sharing scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis

Cathie L M Sudlow and Carl E Counsell
BMJ 2003 326: 388-392. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]