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
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
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
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012