Article Text
Abstract
In this paper, the author argues that the requirement to conduct randomised clinical trials to inform policy in cases where one wants to identify a cheaper alternative to known effective but expensive interventions raises an important ethical issue. This situation will eventually arise whenever there are resource constraints, and a policy decision has been made not to fund an intervention on cost effectiveness grounds. It has been thought that this is an issue only in extremely resource poor settings. This paper gives an example from the United Kingdom illustrating that this is also a problem faced by richer countries.
- NHS, National Health Service
- NICE, National Institute for Clinical Excellence
- QALY, quality adjusted life year
- MS, multiple sclerosis
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
The views in this paper are the author’s and do not represent the policies or positions of the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service, or the Department of Health and Human Services.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- NICE and neurology
- National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments
- Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE’s decisions
- NICE is dead; long live NICE
- Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon β: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life
- NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies
- All health is not equal: the use of modifiers in NICE technology appraisal
- Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005
- NICE's cost effectiveness threshold
- The unintended consequences of NICE