Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between different types of organisation and the results from economic evaluations. DESIGN: Retrospective pairwise comparison of evidence submitted to the technology appraisal programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by manufacturers of the relevant healthcare technologies and by contracted university based assessment groups. DATA SOURCES: Data from the first 62 appraisals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Data from 27 of the 62 appraisals could be compared. The analysis of 54 pairwise comparisons showed that manufacturers' estimates of incremental cost effectiveness ratios were lower (suggesting a more cost effective use of resources) than those produced by the assessment groups (25 were lower, 29 were the same, none were higher, P < 0.01). Restriction of this dataset to include only one pairwise comparison per appraisal (27 pairs) produced a similar result (21 were lower, two were the same, four were higher, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated incremental cost effectiveness ratios submitted by manufacturers were on average significantly lower than those submitted by the assessment groups. These results show that an important role of NICE's appraisal committee, and of decision makers in general, is to determine which economic evaluations, or parts of evaluations, should be given more credence.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 89 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.