Reply from chairman of NICE
- Michael D Rawlins, chairman (anne-toni.rodgers@nice.nhs.uk)
- National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London WC2N 5HR
- Westerhope Medical Group, Westerhope, Newcastle upon Tyne NE5 2LH
- Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd CF37 1DL
- North Cumbria Health Authority, Carlisle CA14 1TS
- Boathouse Surgery, Pangbourne, Berkshire RG8 7DP
- Walsall Community Health Trust, Walsall WS4 2HT
- North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Stoke on Trent ST4 7LN
- Endocrinology and Metabolic Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY
EDITOR—Restrictions on space prevent me replying here in full to Smith's editorial1; my complete response is published on the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) website (http://www.nice.org.uk/).
The institute's purpose is to offer health professionals guidance on the use of technologies, based on rigorous reviews of the available evidence for clinical and cost effectiveness. In doing so, it takes the following six matters into account:
The clinical needs of patients in relation to other available technologies; this is an overriding issue, where the evidence base for clinical effectiveness is crucial
NHS priorities; this is a relative, but not an absolute, criterion
The broad balance between benefits and costs, incorporating both clinical and cost effectiveness
The potential impact on other NHS resources
The encouragement of innovation
Guidance from ministers on the resources available.
The last point exists should it be required; the institute has not yet received any such guidance. In the event that a technology meets the institute's appraisal criteria but is unaffordable with the resources available, it is a matter for parliament, not the institute, to decide resource allocations. If the institute were to be given such advice on resources, the transparent process that we follow (see http://www.nice.org.uk/) ensures that it would be apparent.
Issues about cost effectiveness inform, but are not the sole determinant of, the institute's guidance. The institute seeks evidence from, consults with, and offers the right of appeal to professional and patient organisations while developing its guidance. The appraisal committee's members (who include patient representatives) are entirely independent and could not, as Smith insultingly alleges, be manipulated by “nods and winks.” The NHS Plan indicated that the institute should in addition establish a citizen's council, which will inform value judgments, such as the priority that the NHS should give to future guidelines …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27