This article discusses a briefing paper on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of the NICE written by Christopher McCabe from the University of Leeds in England and colleagues. The paper reviews what the ICER threshold represents, what the appropriate level is and what other factors the NICE should consider. Moreover, the paper critically assesses utilization of the threshold by the NICE to inform its guidance.
*COST effectiveness, *HEALTH care intervention (Social services), *MEDICAL care costs
Abstract
The article focuses on a briefing paper written by Christopher McCabe and colleagues for the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published in the January 2008 issue of "PharmacoEconomics." The paper examines the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NICE, its appropriate level and its utilisation by NICE. An explicit single threshold is recommended instead of the existing range, which is between £20,000 and £30,000. A lower threshold is suggested for interventions with a large budgetary impact.
The article reports on the decision of periodical "PharmacoEconomics" to dedicate its September 2008 issue to the fourth hurdle set by the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) requiring pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of their products. The issue addressed the health technology assessment and the cost-effectiveness rating and attaining National Health Service (NHS) reimbursement. It also includes the original briefing papers commissioned by NICE to inform companies of the requirements.