Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No
BMJ 2009; 338 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b185 (Published 26 January 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b185
- James Raftery, professor of health technology assessment
- 1University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX
- raftery{at}soton.ac.uk
The fact that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has not updated its cost effectiveness threshold over the past decade means that the threshold has been falling. This applies whether adjusted for inflation (up 40% from 1999 to 2007) or for the NHS budget (up 90%).1 This decline is appropriate for several reasons. The correct threshold value, which should be set by the value of those technologies displaced by NICE guidance, seems to be lower. NICE has recently increased the threshold for end of life treatments. To offset this, the general threshold should be reduced. Precedent in the form of treatments previously funded has arguably influenced what people think the threshold should be. The most plausible precedent thresholds are no higher than those of NICE.
Displaced services
Opportunity cost, a key concept in economics, expresses cost in terms …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.