BMJ 2001;323:1300-1303 ( 1 December )

Education and debate

NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies

James Raftery, professor of health economics. 

Health Services Management Centre, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2RT

J.P.Raftery{at}bham.ac.uk

	Introduction

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was set up as a special health authority for England and Wales in 1999. Its role is to provide patients, health professionals, and the public with authoritative, robust, and reliable guidance on current "best practice." It has three main functions: to appraise new technologies, to produce or approve guidelines, and to encourage improvement in quality. NICE was first announced in the new Labour government's white paper The New NHS.¹ As a special health authority it is part of the Department of Health. NICE marks an innovation internationally in that while some other countries have bodies to provide advice on which new health technologies to use, NICE is the first national body with power to issue guidance covering the full range of health technologies.² Guidance from NICE applies to the NHS in the same way as guidance from other parts of the Department of Health; while health authorities are required by statute to take account of but not necessarily follow guidance, general practitioners have greater discretion.³

Summary points Of the 22 health technologies on which NICE had issued guidance by March 2001, it recommended against use in three (with a change of judgment on zanamivir) The guidance recommending use of the 19 other health technologies cited clinical benefit in all instances but could cite cost per QALY in only around half Restrictions on the recommended use of most health technologies (for instance, in most severely ill patients) helped keep the cost per QALY below around £30 000, with only one exceptionriluzole for motor neurone disease, which had a cost per QALY of £34 000 to £44 000 NICE's provisional recommendation against the use of beta interferons or glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis cited its high cost per QALY in relation to technologies previously appraised The net cost of implementing NICE's guidance was around £200m, or less than 0.5% of annual spending on the NHS

NICE is a relatively small organisation with just under 30 members of staff and a budget of around £10m which covers various "inherited projects" (mainly to do with audit). NICE relies heavily on unpaid input in the form of seven non-executive directors and 46 members of its appraisal committee, which is made up of doctors, NHS and commercial managers, academics, nurses, and patient representatives (full details on www.nice.org.uk). NICE is largely a "virtual" organisation relying on a small office and a large network, centred on electronic communication, and contracting out specific tasks.

Transparency
NICE aims to be transparent, not least by publishing all guidance and background appraisals on its web page (www.nice.org), the source of all the guidance discussed here. Minutes of board and appraisal committee meetings, along with membership, supporting documents, and appeal proceedings are published on the website. The only exceptions are submissions that industry deems "commercial-in-confidence." Because of advance leaks of three appraisals (all unfavourable to the technology), in early 2001 NICE decided to publish its provisional technology appraisals⁴ as well as final appraisal documents.

The Department of Health selects health technologies for assessment by using four criteria: possible health benefit, links to health related policies, impact on NHS resources, and the added value of NICE guidance.⁵ New health technologies are identified for the Department of Health by the National Horizon Scanning Centre in the University of Birmingham. The task of NICE is to make recommendations on use in the NHS of particular health technologies based on appraisal and assessment of their "clinical and cost effectiveness."

Companies who manufacture the relevant technologies ("sponsoring companies") and professional and patient groups are invited to submit evidence. NICE's appraisal committee (which was doubled in size in 2001) appraises technologies on the basis of submissions and commissioned independent assessments. The form of evidence is specified as clinical outcomes, cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY), and impact on the cost of NHS and social services. ^{5 6} Seven academic centres have been commissioned to provide independent assessments to NICE, after a public tendering process.

The appraisal committee appraises each health technology, using its commissioned assessments and industry submissions and taking into account the views of both professional and patient groups. These groups are invited to the relevant meetings of the committee. After coming to a conclusion in a closed session the committee drafts a provisional appraisal, which, when finalised after consultation, forms the basis of guidance which NICE issues in line with the secretary of state's directions.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Topics on which NICE had issued guidance to March 2001 (in order of issue of guidance)

Independence
NICE is independent in relation to its assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness, but the secretary of state for health, Alan Milburn, has emphasised that the Department of Health has responsibility for affordability and hence for the guidance.⁷ Decisions by NICE can be subject to appeal by the sponsoring company or by other consultees (manufacturers or other sponsors, professional and patient groups, Department of Health).⁸

The British pharmaceutical industry was initially hostile to NICE, arguing that, once licensed, doctors should be free to prescribe. More recently, through the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the industry has been engaged with the government "in comprehensive discussions about how NICE operates, including its impact on uptake of new medicines."⁹

	Review of NICE's guidance

I reviewed NICE's published guidance on 22 technologies with the three criteria originally outlined in its requirements for submissions of evidence: clinical benefits, cost per QALY, and impact of cost on NHS.⁵ I used March 2001 as a cut-off point as NICE issued revised criteria in that month.⁶ I downloaded each published guidance from the NICE webpage and checked it against these criteria.

Table 1 lists the 22 topics and summarises my findings. Three technologies were not recommended: prophylactic removal of wisdom teeth, laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, and autologous cartilage transplantation for defects in knee joints. One other, the anti-influenza drug zanamivir, was not recommended in March 2000, but on the basis of new evidence NICE recommended it in December 2000 for adults at high risk at times when consultations for influenza exceeded a certain level.

Decision making
Given the decision making process described above, I could not conclusively establish how the balance between clinical benefit and economics (cost per QALY) influences NICE recommendations. An indication of the factors that influence decisions can be obtained from examination of the reasons outlined in the guidance. Each of the 19 guidance publications that recommended technologies cited evidence of clinical benefit. No such evidence was cited in the four publications that did not recommend a technology. Conditions generally applied to the use of the health technologies recommended, such as restricting use to patients at high risk or as second line treatment. For some technologies, however, more general use was approved, such as stents in coronary angioplasty and implantable defibrillators for cardiac arrhythmias.

For pharmaceuticals, the evidence for clinical benefits reflected those benefits required for drug licensing, but NICE's conditions were sometimes more restrictive than the licensed indications, which led to some appeals (taxanes for breast cancer and ovarian cancer, zanamivir, proton pump inhibitors, inhalers for children with asthma). As non-drug technologies do not require licensing, less information tends to be available on their efficacy. NICE guidance attempted to deal with this by setting standards for the clinical effectiveness of hip prostheses and by recommending pilot implementation of liquid based cytology in screening for cervical cancer. As a result, the Department of Health put the specifications for a national joint register out to public consultation and set up pilot schemes for liquid based cytology.

Cost per QALY
In only half the topics did the NICE guidance cite cost per QALY (table 2), suggesting that economics had a lesser role than evidence of clinical benefits. For the other half, NICE guidance stated that this measure of cost effectiveness was "very difficult" or "impossible" to estimate, mainly because of lack of data on the effects of the technology on patients' quality of life. Estimates of cost per QALY may have been available to NICE either in industry submissions (unpublished) or in independent appraisals (published), but the decision by NICE not to cite these estimates suggests it did not find them convincing. NICE's revised protocol for industry submissions reflects the difficulties in establishing estimates of cost per QALY by accepting disease specific measures of cost effectiveness for specific diseases.⁶

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. NICE guidance: cost per QALY and cost impact on NHS of various technologies

For those technologies for which cost per QALY or per life year was cited, all received positive recommendations, and all but one (riluzole) had cost per QALY below £30 000. The imposition of restrictions on recommended use generally reduced the cost per QALY. Patients' values were cited as the reason for recommending riluzole for motor neurone disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis form only), despite its relatively high cost per QALY of £34 000-44 000. NICE cited "the severity and relatively short life span of people with ALS and in particular . . . the values which patients place on the extension of tracheotomy free survival time."¹⁰

The provisional guidance that recommended against the use of beta interferons and glatiramer for multiple sclerosis cited their relatively high cost per QALY (£40 000 to £90 000 on the most optimistic estimates) and stated that NICE had in mind the cost effectiveness ratio of technologies it had previously recommended.¹¹

The final element of each NICE guidance concerns the costs to the NHS of implementing the guidance (cost impact). Estimates of gross and net costs are provided, the latter taking into account any substitution of old technologies by new ones. The items that led to major increases in net costs were tribavirin and interferon alfa, both prescribed for hepatitis C (£55m in total, possibly spread over several years, and due mainly to a backlog of untreated cases) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for acute coronary syndromes (net £30m-31m), with none of the others costing more than £20m. The impact on total net cost was reduced by projected savings for some technologiesnotably, restricted use of proton pump inhibitors (projected saving £40m-50m annually). The combined net cost of the 22 judgments was £200m-214m or around 0.5% of annual NHS spending in England and Wales. This provides some indication, on the basis of individual technologies, of the extent to which new health technologies may change net healthcare spending. Increases of this magnitude should be readily achieved within the real increases in NHS spending of around 6% per year over the three years to 2004, although some local bottlenecks may become apparent.

	Discussion

While NICE has been caricatured under the heading "it's easier to say yes than no,"¹² it would be more accurate to characterise it as saying "yes, but . . ." Its recommendations have all cited evidence of clinical benefits, while only around half have cited cost per QALY. Many of its recommendations have specified conditions for use, such as subgroups of patients most likely to benefit. This in turn requires guidelines covering the full range of treatment options for the different groups of patients. This second, guideline, function of NICE may prove more important and challenging over the longer term, given the magnitude of the task and the paucity of evidence. By October 2000 NICE had published four guidelines and was working on a further 31, often for the same diseases as those for which guidance on technologies has been issued.

The specification by NICE of conditions for use, which has generally enabled it to keep the cost per QALY below £30 000, could be seen as requiring rationing at a more detailed level, perhaps within some overall guidelines for use. Overall, however, NICE's guidance recommending use of most technologies appraised will arguably lead to "faster and more uniform access" to these technologies rather than to denial access.

	Footnotes

   Funding: None.

Competing interests: The author directs a unit that contributes health economics input to NICE assessments. He is also a codirector of the National Horizon Scanning Centre. The views expressed in this article are personal and do not reflect those of any organistion.

	References

1.	Department of Health. The new NHS: dependable, modern. London: Department of Health, 1997.
2.	Sculpher M, Drummond M, OBrien B. Effectiveness, efficiency, and NICE [editorial]. BMJ 2001; 322: 943[Free Full Text].
3.	Newdick C. Strong words. Health Service J 2001; 111: 26-27.
4.	NICE. NICE technology appraisal programme. Arrangements for receiving comments on appraisal consultation documents. Item 5: Technology appraisal programme. Consultation on the proposed publication of provisional and final determinations. Minutes of NICE board meeting, 6 February 2001. www.nice.org.uk/pdf/brdfeb01item5.pdf (accessed 1 Oct 2001).
5.	Department of Health. Faster access to modern treatment; how NICE appraisal will work. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1999.
6.	NICE. NICE technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2001.
7.	House of Commons Health Committee. Healthminutes of evidence. 8 November 2000. www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhealth/cmhealth.htm (accessed 1 Oct 2001).
8.	NICE. Guidance for appellants. Technology appraisal process, 2. www.nice.org.uk/pdf/guidanceforappellantsfinal.pdf (accessed 1 Oct 2001).
9.	Department of Health and Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry. Prime minister announces results of pharmaceutical industry competitiveness task force. Press release. 28 March 2001. www.abpi.org.uk (accessed 1 Oct 2001).
10.	NICE. Riluzole for motor neurone diseasefull guidance. London: NICE, 2001. wwe.nice.org.uk/Article.asp?a=14490 (accessed 27 March 2001).
11.	NICE. Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Provisional appraisal determination. August 2001. www.nice.org.uk/Docref.asp?d=18759 (accessed 1 Oct 2001).
12.	Smith R. The failings of NICE. BMJ 2000; 321: 1363-1364[Free Full Text].

---

© BMJ 2001
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study

S C Griffin, J A Barber, A Manca, M J Sculpher, S G Thompson, M J Buxton, and H Hemingway
BMJ 2007 334: 624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Acupuncture in mainstream health care

David Wonderling
BMJ 2006 333: 611-612. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005

James Raftery
BMJ 2006 332: 1266-1268. [Full Text] [PDF]

Cost effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT)

UKATT Research Team
BMJ 2005 331: 544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Bravo Vergel, Y., Sculpher, M. (2008). Quality-adjusted life years. PN 8: 175-182 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• O'reilly, J., Lowson, K., Green, J., Young, J. B., Forster, A. (2008). Post-acute care for older people in community hospitals--a cost-effectiveness analysis within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 0: afn120v1-afn120 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Campion, J., Checinski, K., Nurse, J. (2008). Review of smoking cessation treatments for people with mental illness. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 14: 208-216 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Elahi, M. M, Khan, J. S (2008). Coronary Heart Disease Service Framework for Revascularization in Pakistan. Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 16: 81-85 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lewis, M., James, M., Stokes, E., Hill, J., Sim, J., Hay, E., Dziedzic, K. (2007). An economic evaluation of three physiotherapy treatments for non-specific neck disorders alongside a randomized trial. Rheumatology (Oxford) 46: 1701-1708 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bravo Vergel, Y., Hawkins, N. S., Claxton, K., Asseburg, C., Palmer, S., Woolacott, N., Bruce, I. N., Sculpher, M. J. (2007). The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 46: 1729-1735 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bravo Vergel, Y., Palmer, S., Asseburg, C., Fenwick, E., de Belder, M., Abrams, K., Sculpher, M. (2007). Is primary angioplasty cost effective in the UK? Results of a comprehensive decision analysis. Heart 93: 1238-1243 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Briggs, A., Mihaylova, B., Sculpher, M., Hall, A., Wolstenholme, J., Simoons, M., Deckers, J., Ferrari, R., Remme, W. J, Bertrand, M., Fox, K., on behalf of the EUROPA Trial Investigators, (2007). Cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study. Heart 93: 1081-1086 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Walker, S., Palmer, S., Sculpher, M. (2007). The role of NICE technology appraisal in NHS rationing. Br Med Bull 0: ldm007v1-14 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Griffin, S C, Barber, J A, Manca, A, Sculpher, M J, Thompson, S G, Buxton, M J, Hemingway, H (2007). Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study. BMJ 334: 624-624 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Wright, J., Bibby, J., Eastham, J., Harrison, S., McGeorge, M., Patterson, C., Price, N., Russell, D., Russell, I., Small, N., Walsh, M., Young, J. (2007). Multifaceted implementation of stroke prevention guidelines in primary care: cluster-randomised evaluation of clinical and cost effectiveness. Qual Saf Health Care 16: 51-59 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Dolan, P., Peasgood, T. (2007). Estimating the Economic and Social Costs of the Fear of Crime. Br J Criminol 47: 121-132 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Canter, P. H., Coon, J. T., Ernst, E. (2006). Cost-Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies in the United Kingdom--A Systematic Review{dagger}. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 3: 425-432 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Wonderling, D. (2006). Acupuncture in mainstream health care. BMJ 333: 611-612 [Full text]  
• Grieve, R, Roberts, J, Wright, M, Sweeting, M, DeAngelis, D, Rosenberg, W, Bassendine, M, Main, J, Thomas, H (2006). Cost effectiveness of interferon {alpha} or peginterferon {alpha} with ribavirin for histologically mild chronic hepatitis C. Gut 55: 1332-1338 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Witt, C. M., Jena, S., Selim, D., Brinkhaus, B., Reinhold, T., Wruck, K., Liecker, B., Linde, K., Wegscheider, K., Willich, S. N. (2006). Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating the Clinical and Economic Effectiveness of Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain. Am J Epidemiol 164: 487-496 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Raftery, J. (2006). Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005.. BMJ 332: 1266-1268 [Full text]  
• Petrou, S., Bischof, M., Bennett, C., Elbourne, D., Field, D., McNally, H. (2006). Cost-Effectiveness of Neonatal Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Based on 7-Year Results From the United Kingdom Collaborative ECMO Trial. Pediatrics 117: 1640-1649 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Singaroyan, R., Seed, C. A., Egdell, R. M. (2006). Is a target culture in health care always compatible with efficient use of resources? A cost-effectiveness analysis of an intervention to achieve thrombolysis targets. J Public Health (Oxf) 28: 31-34 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Neyt, M., Albrecht, J., Cocquyt, V. (2006). An economic evaluation of Herceptin(R) in adjuvant setting: the Breast Cancer International Research Group 006 trial. Ann Oncol 17: 381-390 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Chase, D, Roderick, P, Cooper, K, Davies, R, Quinn, T, Raftery, J (2006). Using simulation to estimate the cost effectiveness of improving ambulance and thrombolysis response times after myocardial infarction. Emerg. Med. J. 23: 67-72 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• PARROTT, S., GODFREY, C., HEATHER, N., CLARK, J., RYAN, T. (2006). COST AND OUTCOME ANALYSIS OF TWO ALCOHOL DETOXIFICATION SERVICES. Alcohol Alcohol 41: 84-91 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sampson, F C, Goodacre, S, Kelly, A-M, Kerr, D (2005). How is deep vein thrombosis diagnosed and managed in UK and Australian emergency departments?. Emerg. Med. J. 22: 780-782 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• UKATT Research Team, (2005). Cost effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). BMJ 331: 544- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bansback, N J, Brennan, A, Ghatnekar, O (2005). Cost effectiveness of adalimumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 995-1002 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Goodacre, S, Dixon, S (2005). Is a chest pain observation unit likely to be cost effective at my hospital? Extrapolation of data from a randomised controlled trial. Emerg. Med. J. 22: 418-422 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Raftery, J. P, Yao, G. L, Murchie, P., Campbell, N. C, Ritchie, L. D (2005). Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330: 707- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Harvey, N., Cooper, C. (2005). Physiotherapy for neck and back pain. BMJ 330: 53-54 [Full text]  
• Miners, A H, Garau, M., Fidan, D., Fischer, A J (2005). Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 330: 65- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• UK BEAM Trial Team, (2004). United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 329: 1381- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Munro, J. F, Nicholl, J. P, Brazier, J. E, Davey, R., Cochrane, T. (2004). Cost effectiveness of a community based exercise programme in over 65 year olds: cluster randomised trial. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 58: 1004-1010 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Williams, N. H, Edwards, R. T, Linck, P., Muntz, R., Hibbs, R., Wilkinson, C., Russell, I., Russell, D., Hounsome, B. (2004). Cost-utility analysis of osteopathy in primary care: results from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 21: 643-650 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Taylor, R S, Drummond, M F, Salkeld, G, Sullivan, S D (2004). Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 329: 972-975 [Full text]  
• Buxton, M.J., Sullivan, S.D., Andersson, L.F., Lamm, C.J., Liljas, B., Busse, W.W, Pedersen, S., Weiss, K.B. (2004). Country-specific cost-effectiveness of early intervention with budesonide in mild asthma. Eur Respir J 24: 568-574 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Petrou, S, Edwards, L (2004). Cost effectiveness analysis of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation based on four year results from the UK Collaborative ECMO Trial. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 89: F263-F268 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Parrott, S., Godfrey, C. (2004). Economics of smoking cessation. BMJ 328: 947-949 [Full text]  
• Wonderling, D., Vickers, A. J, Grieve, R., McCarney, R. (2004). Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care. BMJ 328: 747- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Goodacre, S., Nicholl, J., Dixon, S., Cross, E., Angelini, K., Arnold, J., Revill, S., Locker, T., Capewell, S. J, Quinney, D., Campbell, S., Morris, F. (2004). Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care. BMJ 328: 254- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sculpher, M., Manca, A., Abbott, J., Fountain, J., Mason, S., Garry, R. (2004). Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial. BMJ 328: 134- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Renehan, A. G, O'Dwyer, S. T, Whynes, D. K (2004). Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer. BMJ 328: 81- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Holloway, R., Dick, A. W. (2004). Editorial Comment--Stroke Cost-Effectiveness Research: Are Acceptability Curves Acceptable?. Stroke 35: 203-204 [Full text]  
• Patel, A., Knapp, M., Perez, I., Evans, A., Kalra, L. (2004). Alternative Strategies for Stroke Care: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analyses From a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Stroke 35: 196-203 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mossialos, E., McKee, M. (2003). Rationing treatment on the NHS--still a political issue. JRSM 96: 372-373 [Full text]  
• Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study Group, (2002). Multicentre aneurysm screening study (MASS): cost effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms based on four year results from randomised controlled trial. BMJ 325: 1135-1135 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Is NICE guidance affordable?

Shahed Ahmad, et al.
bmj.com, 11 Dec 2001 [Full text]