Nigel Hawkes
Win VIP tickets
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is criticised regularly for being too conservative when it comes to approving new prescription drugs, is in fact too generous with its assessments, a group of economists has suggested.
The group argues that, by recommending drugs that save few lives, NICE is diverting money from other, better-value treatments.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, John Appleby, of the King’s Fund, and two professors of economics from City University in London, Nancy Devlin and David Parkin, say that NICE sets too low a threshold for the approval of new medicines.
NICE rates a drug as cost effective if there is evidence that it costs less than about £30,000 for every so-called quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved. That means that if spending £30,000 on a drug can prolong a single life for one year of good health –or two lives forsix months, and so on – it is cost effective.
The three economists argue that this figure is randomly selected and is almost certainly too generous. The average primary care trust can gain an extra QALY in treating circulatory disease for £12,000, and in cancer for £19,000, they claim.
So if it is obliged to pay for treatments that cost £30,000 per QALY, the trust is forced to economise on those that cost less. This means that resources are poorly used and taxpayers do not get the maximum benefit.
The authors, risking the rage of patient groups that already complain of unfairness in NICE’s decision-making, say that NICE approves too many ineffective medicines and is reducing the overall efficiency of the service.
They want the health service to be given a “threshold committee” modelled on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, to determine what a QALY is worth, given the cash available to the NHS. This would then be used throughout the NHS.
“NICE conjuring up a threshold and others not using one at all creates neither efficiency nor fairness in the NHS,” they say.
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more




Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£23,093 - £56,211
The Office for National Statistics
Newport, South Wales
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Is it not extraordinary that the only 'value for money' thing that the Kings Fund focusses on is drugs?
Drugs is not where the money is going, and being wasted. It is 'management'. If we could just have a threshold for the ratio of managers to doctors and nurses, and have THAT enforced by an Overheads Committee, maybe we would have lower cancer mortality. And lower stroke mortality.
And better access to the drugs NICE approves.
George Johnson, London, England
There are some very good points made in this article,I would go further and suggest that prior to any decision-making
Nice should also be asked to do random clinical audits.We are an ageing population and during our lifetime will present with age related health problems the main one that springs to mind is OPHTHALMOLOGY !!!! Why then is there not more local/community based services.Key investment in this area would reduce Acute Hospital admission and serve patients better.I did contact NICE about this and they said it was not part of their brief!!!!! Perhaps it should be.
Mary E Hoult , Leeds, Yorkshire
Drugs should only be used for people who need them unwell people, not the people who have had enough of life or drugies.
its not right and thats not the only thing i have had enough of, i have had enough of people like parliament and the police saying that they will do something about it but then they wont and that poor 11 year old boy who got shot i dont think things are getting done, things like this wouldn't happen if people hadn't made the guns in the first place, i mean what has the world become!! its time to stop making the guns, clear them off the streets and make peace not wars, not killings, not muder, or suiside, PEACE!!
13year.old.girl, w.g.c, hearts
The idea that "and taxpayers do not get the maximum benefit" only applies if you are a taxpayer without a condition requiring an expensive drug - and maybe not even then. One of the things all taxpayers get if they know that the treatment they need will be fully funded is peace of mind - something I doubt that these economists have taken into account.
David Bates, London, UK