A model for NICE in the US

doi:10.1136/bmj.b2221

Published 3 June 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2221
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b2221

Editorials

A model for NICE in the US

Will provide data on comparative efficacy and cost-effectivenessto improve health care

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The US Congress has recently allocated $1.1bn for research tocompare the effectiveness of different treatments.¹ As McGrealexplains,² some groups fiercely oppose the plans. Conservativesfor Patient Rights (CPR) argue that "choice, competition, accountabilityand personal responsibility" should determine better healthcare. Spokesmen from the pharmaceutical industry have triedto discredit the investigation of cost effectiveness, which"puts a ceiling on price and can limit the treatment optionsfor patients. Critics have faulted the UK National Institutefor Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for that." One UKcritic of NICE, Karol Sikora (medical director of CancerPartnersUK),is quoted as saying: "As a practicing oncologist, I am forcedto give patients older, cheaper medicines. The real cost ofthis penny-pinching is premature death for thousands of patients—andhigher overall health costs than if they had been treated properly:sick people are expensive." Should Americans welcome cost effectivenessanalysis?

Health care . . . [Full text of this article]

R E Ferner, director¹, Sarah E McDowell, research officer¹

¹ West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH

r.e.ferner@bham.ac.uk

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Advocacy for all: Tessa Richards
BMJ 2009 338: b2212. [Extract] [Full Text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Cost-effectiveness analysis represents overt rationing: Adam M Ali
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2009 [Full text]
Global comparison is even better: Michael Forrest
bmj.com, 15 Jun 2009 [Full text]