Harris’ reply to our defence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence’s (NICE) current cost-effectiveness procedures contains two further errors. First, he wrongly draws a conclusion from the fact that NICE does not and cannot evaluate all possible uses of healthcare resources at any one time and generally cannot know which National Health Service (NHS) activities would be displaced or which groups of patients would have to forgo health benefits: the inference is that no estimate is or can be made by NICE of the benefits to be forgone. This is a non-sequitur. Second, he asserts that it is a flaw at the heart of the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an outcome measure that comparisons between people need to be made. Such comparisons do indeed have to be made, but this is not a consequence of the choice of any particular outcome measure, be it the QALY or anything else.
- NHS, National Health Service
- NICE, National Institute for Clinical Excellence
- QALYs, quality-adjusted life years
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: KC is a member of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence’s Appraisals Committee, and was a member of the working party that recommended NICE’s current methodology for the conduct of economic appraisals; AJC was a member of the NICE Board that commissioned and accepted this work, and, although no longer on the Board, remains a member of NICE’s Research and Development Committee.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE’s decisions
- Not a NICE fallacy: a reply to Dr Quigley
- Ageism and equality
- Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?
- All health is not equal: the use of modifiers in NICE technology appraisal
- Public healthcare resource allocation and the Rule of Rescue
- NICE is not cost effective
- It’s not NICE to discriminate
- Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity
- Impact of missed treatment opportunities on outcomes in hospitalised patients with heart failure