BMJ 2000;321:1363-1364 ( 2 December )

Editorials

The failings of NICE

Time to start work on version 2

Despite the protestations of its boss, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is an instrument for rationing health care. ^{1 2} Unfortunately, it's not a very good one. A government with spine would learn from the failings of NICE and move on to version 2. Perhaps this is a job for after the next election, whoever wins.

NICE, which covers only England and Wales, began in 1999 with three main functions. ^{1 3-5} Firstly, it appraises new technologies, including drugs, and decides which should be encouraged in the NHS and which should be held back. Its other functions are to produce or approve guidelines and to encourage quality improvement. The biggest push for NICE came from political disapproval of "postcode prescribing:" patients on opposite sides of the same street may receive or be denied treatment because they fall under different health authorities, each with different policies on which treatments they will fund.

NICE began with a blaze of publicity by deciding that zanamivir, a new drug for treating flu, would not be made available in the NHS. ^{6 7} Its decision was based on the lack of evidence that the drug was effective in older people and others most at risk of serious harm from flu. It glossed over the fact that the same could be said for many, even most, treatments currently available on the NHS. Zanamivir's manufacturers, Glaxo Wellcome, were furious, and the chief executive threatened to take the company's research abroad.⁶ Last week, NICE reversed its decision on the drug, declaring that it would be available to at risk adults who present within 36 hours of developing symptoms when consultations for flu rise above 50 a week per 100 000 population.⁸ Just how easy it will be to implement such complex advice remains to be seen, but NICE boasted that the reversal of its guidance showed its commitment to evidence. A pooled analysis by the manufacturers showed that the drug would reduce symptoms in those at high risk from 6 to 5 days.

It's easier to say yes than no
When NICE approves treatmentssuch as taxanes for cancerthen there's little fuss, although many cardiologists think that it oversold the use of intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in high risk patients who have had a heart attack, perhaps because it was overinfluenced by the drug companies' secret evidence. NICE's problems begin when it tries to deny treatments. It decided against beta interferon for multiple sclerosis and promptly found itself facing hostile publicity and an appeal from both the manufacturers and patients' groups.⁹ Its final decision will not be available until the new year.

One failing of NICE is that it's living a double lie. The first liewhich is as Orwellian as its nameis to deny that it's about rationing health care, which might be defined as "denying effective interventions." Denying ineffective interventions is not rationing; rather it's what the Americans call a "no brainer." The population is smart enough both to know that NICE is rationing health care and that rationing of health care is inevitable. The second, and related, lie is to give the impression that if the evidence supports a treatment then it's made available and if it doesn't it isn't. In other words, the whole messy problem of deciding which interventions to make available can be decided with some data and a computer. It's a technical problem. This lie corrupts the concept of evidence based medicine, which the BMJ has long championed. The evidence supports decision making, but the evidence can't make the decision. The values of the patient or the community must be part of the decision. Effective interventions have adverse effects. How can benefits be weighed against risks? How, for example, might an individual woman or society balance the probable cardiovascular benefits of hormone replacement therapy after the menopause against the increased risk of breast cancer? This is not a technical problem. Similarly treatments that are highly cost effective in those at high risk are also effective in those at low riskbut at a very high cost. Deciding where cost effectiveness ends is not a technical but an ethical judgement.

These failures with honesty may lead to the ultimate failure of NICE, which could be the inability to say no except in obvious cases. Beta interferon is effective in reducing the progression of multiple sclerosis in some patients, and donezepil is effective in slowing the progression of Alzheimer's disease in some patients. A body that is not about rationing and is concerned primarily with evidence might have to promote the wide use of both drugs within the NHS, whereas a body that was honestly about rationing might legitimately say no to both drugs. We shall see.

One off decisions unbalance system
Another failure with NICE is that it considers issues one at a time and is mostly concerned with what's new and expensive. A better system, like the one in Oregon, would look at all interventions. Otherwise a weak body that finds itself saying yes to most new technologies will encourage the traditional unjust rationing by delay (waiting lists), discrimination (against the elderly and mentally ill), dilution (two nurses on a geriatric ward at night when there should be four), and diversion (long term care moves to the social sector). Patients with Alzheimer's disease might receive donepezil but perhaps be worse off because they lose some of their nursing and social care.

Transparency is vital in an issue as difficult as rationing health care, and NICE has moved in the right direction by deciding to make its preliminary determinations public. Still, however, the process is far from transparent, and the suspicion is that political clout is as important as evidence in the final decision.

Probably NICE had to exist in order for us to begin to think about something better. A single body cannot "solve" the problem of rationing, but Britain would benefit from a body that admits it is about rationing, works openly, uses evidence, looks right across health care, incorporates ethical thinking systematically into its judgments, is more distant from politicians and the pharmaceutical industry, and is directly accountable to the public. Let's call it CHORthe Committee for Honest and Open Rationing.

Richard Smith, editor. 

BMJ

---

1.	Rawlins M. In pursuit of quality: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 1999; 353: 1079-1082[CrossRef][Medline].
2.	Goodman NW. Rational rationing. BMJ 2000; 321: 1356[Free Full Text].
3.	NHS Executive. Faster access to modern treatment: how NICE appraisal will work. Leeds: NHSE, 1999.
4.	Smith R. NICE: a panacea for the NHS? BMJ 1999; 318: 823-824[Free Full Text].
5.	Abbasi K. The man from NICE. BMJ 1998; 317: 1476[Free Full Text].
6.	Yamey. G. NICE to rule on influenza flu drug zanamivir. BMJ 1999; 319: 942[Free Full Text].
7.	Yamey G. Dobson backed NICE ruling on flu drug. BMJ 1999; 319: 1024[Free Full Text].
8.	O'Neale Roach J. NICE recommends flu drug for "at risk" patients. BMJ 2000; 321: 1305[Free Full Text].
9.	Dobson R. NICE to reconsider evidence on interferon beta. BMJ 2000; 321: 1244[Free Full Text].

---

© BMJ 2000
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia

Cliff Prior, Judi Clements, Michelle Rowett, David Taylor, Rhiannon Rowsell, Christopher Link, John Donoghue, Sing Lee, Ian Anderson, Richard Duggins, David Rhinds, William Hall, Robert Kerwin, Clive Adams, Lorna Duggan, John Geddes, Paul Harrison, Nick Freemantle, and Paul Bebbington
BMJ 2001 322: 924. [Extract] [Full Text]

Should NICE's advice be handled centrally or locally?

Peter Brambleby
BMJ 2001 322: 613. [Extract] [Full Text]

The failings of NICE

Michael D Rawlins, Toby Lipman, Julian Tudor Hart, Robert Walker, Mike Powell, Jagdeesh S Dhaliwal, Simon J Ellis, Stephen Robinson, Jonathan Valabhji, and Mike Schachter
BMJ 2001 322: 489. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Neumann, P. J., Rosen, A. B., Weinstein, M. C. (2005). Medicare and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. NEJM 353: 1516-1522 [Full text]  
• Smith, R. (2004). The triumph of NICE. BMJ 329: - [Full text]  
• Lie, R K (2004). Research ethics and evidence based medicine. J. Med. Ethics 30: 122-125 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ashcroft, R. E (2003). In vitro fertilisation for all?. BMJ 327: 511-512 [Full text]  
• Syrett, K. (2003). A Technocratic Fix to the "Legitimacy Problem"? The Blair Government and Health Care Rationing in the United Kingdom. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 28: 715-746 [Abstract]  
• Heller, T., Heller, L. (2003). First among Equals?: Does drug treatment for dementia claim more than its fair share of resources?. Dementia 2: 7-19 [Abstract]  
• Dent, T. H S, Sadler, M. (2002). From guidance to practice: Why NICE is not enough. BMJ 324: 842-845 [Full text]  
• Raftery, J. (2001). NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 323: 1300-1303 [Full text]  
• Cookson, R., McDaid, D., Maynard, A. (2001). Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources?. BMJ 323: 743-745 [Full text]  
• KNIGHT, C. J (2001). National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance: too NICE to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors?. Heart 85: 481-483 [Full text]  
• Prior, C., Clements, J., Rowett, M., Taylor, D., Rowsell, R., Link, C., Donoghue, J., Lee, S., Anderson, I., Duggins, R., Rhinds, D., Hall, W., Kerwin, R., Adams, C., Duggan, L., Geddes, J., Harrison, P., Freemantle, N., Bebbington, P. (2001). Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. BMJ 322: 924a-924 [Full text]  
• Brambleby, P. (2001). Should NICE's advice be handled centrally or locally?. BMJ 322: 613-613 [Full text]  
• Rawlins, M. D, Lipman, T., Hart, J. T., Walker, R., Powell, M., Dhaliwal, J. S, Ellis, S. J, Robinson, S., Valabhji, J., Schachter, M. (2001). The failings of NICE. BMJ 322: 489-489 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Better understanding of NICE

Jay Brophy
bmj.com, 2 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Experience down-under isn't at all upside-down

Elmer V Villanueva
bmj.com, 4 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Three Cheers

Roger Johnson
bmj.com, 5 Dec 2000 [Full text]

CHOR

Jagdeesh S Dhaliwal
bmj.com, 5 Dec 2000 [Full text]

The failings of NICE

Hugh Robertson-Ritchie
bmj.com, 5 Dec 2000 [Full text]

The limits of Niceness

Alan Burns
bmj.com, 5 Dec 2000 [Full text]

How influential?

Peter Selley
bmj.com, 5 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Thief of Baghdad

Manoj Pai
bmj.com, 5 Dec 2000 [Full text]

The failings of NICE-why the decision on Relenza will not end post-code prescribing.

Mike Powell
bmj.com, 6 Dec 2000 [Full text]

The Failings of NICE?

Michael Rawlins
bmj.com, 8 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Re: How influential?

David Barnett
bmj.com, 8 Dec 2000 [Full text]

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so

John Hopkins
bmj.com, 9 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Broader vision for new agency

Jane Lethbridge
bmj.com, 9 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Rationing the evidence?

Peter Selley
bmj.com, 9 Dec 2000 [Full text]

But we do need rationing

Neville W Goodman
bmj.com, 9 Dec 2000 [Full text]

"rationing" a respectable word for a disgraceful retreat

Julian Tudor Hart
bmj.com, 9 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Spinning is not Nice

Robert Walker
bmj.com, 12 Dec 2000 [Full text]

NICE and EBM

Toby Lipman
bmj.com, 12 Dec 2000 [Full text]

NICE decision to reverse zanamivir ruling

Iain Stephenson
bmj.com, 14 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Reference: the web

Adrian Midgley
bmj.com, 14 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Re: Rationing the evidence?

Peter Selley
bmj.com, 14 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Relenza should be an over-the-counter drug

Bob Tanner
bmj.com, 22 Dec 2000 [Full text]

The Failings of NICE

Peter Brambleby
bmj.com, 4 Jan 2001 [Full text]

NICE as Big Brother

Elizabeth Davies
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2001 [Full text]