Minister’s “NICE” Recommendations Don’t Go Far Enough
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been a source of much debate since it first came into being in 2005 with the remit to assess medicines. Initially it was denied that its role was to focus on cost effectiveness, but this has now long been acknowledged.
The spotlight on NICE continued in this morning’s media with articles such as this one in the Guardian. This reported on the Health Minister’s recommendations to overhaul the current NICE system with the claim that this would provide faster, fairer access to new drugs and treatments.
While this is good news in that the assessments will be more focused and faster, these new measures fail to address increasing concerns around how NICE carries out its assessments. As recent successful appeals against its recommendations including those for Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis have shown, there are valid concerns about the procedures used and NICE’s transparency around them. These include the refusal by NICE to share the economic models on which they have based their decisions and more recently, their failure to follow their own process.
NICE will always face challenges to its recommendations, but while the government is reviewing this organisation, surely it should be taking a more fundamental look at how it actually carries out its assessment. It seems illogical to be driving for an increasing number of assessments, when how they are carried out may be crucially flawed.
Tags: Alzheimer's, Arthritis, cost effectiveness, health, health economics, NICE, osteoporosis
Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious
Post Your Comment