Abstract

ObjectivesIn January 2009, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence introduced supplementary guidance for end-of-life (EoL) treatments, which allowed treatments with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the regular threshold (£20 000-£30 000) to be recommended, if they satisfied the EoL criteria. The aims of this study were (1) to systematically review 10 years of EoL supplementary guidance implementation and explore how it could be improved, and (2) to create a framework for incorporating the uncertainty relating to EoL criteria satisfaction into model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for decision making. MethodsAll appraisals between January 2009 and 2019 were screened for EoL discussions. Data were extracted on the EoL criteria and cost-effectiveness assessment details. Additionally, a quantitative method was developed to include the EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty into model-based cost-effectiveness analyses. A stylized example was created to provide a case study for the inclusion of EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty. ResultsAn EoL discussion was identified in 35% of appraisals, 57% of which led to a positive EoL decision. Only 5.7% of technologies with positive EoL decisions were not recommended, versus 43.8% of technologies with negative EoL decisions. EoL criteria assessment was often reported insufficiently and evaluated inconsistently and nontransparently. A total of 54.9% of EoL decisions were made while at least 1 criterion was surrounded by considerable uncertainty. By applying the proposed quantitative method, this EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty was accounted for in decision making. The stylized example demonstrated that the impact of EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty can be substantial enough to reverse the reimbursement decision. ConclusionsTo improve consistency/transparency and correct reimbursement decisions’ likelihood, new guidelines on the implementation of the EoL criteria are needed.

Highlights

  • In 2009, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) introduced supplementary guidance for end of life (EoL) technologies.[1]

  • The EoL supplementary guidance has led to a shift in the cost-effectiveness threshold for EoL technologies from £20 000 to £30 000 to £50 000.15–17 In our review, we observed that most EoL technologies were priced between £30 000 and £50 000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, which could suggest that companies adjusted their pricing strategy to the higher EoL cost-effectiveness threshold

  • This review of the EoL supplementary guidance implementation showed that it is not always consistently conducted or transparently reported and that uncertainty relating of EoL criteria satisfaction is insufficiently accounted for in decision making

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In 2009, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) introduced supplementary guidance for end of life (EoL) technologies.[1] This guidance allows the Appraisal Committee (AC) to give additional weight to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) benefits achieved at the EoL as they see fit, up to a maximum of 1.7. This effectively allows EoL technologies with incremental costeffectiveness ratios (ICERs) greater than the standard £20 000 to £30 000 NICE threshold range to be recommended for use within the National Health Service (NHS), up to a maximum of £50 000 per QALY. The original guidance contained a third criterion, stating that the treatment should be indicated for a small patient population, but NICE removed this criterion in 2016.2

Objectives
Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.