Governance and Public Policy: a NICE example John Brazier Professor of Health Economics, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK With thanks to Matt Stevenson.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparing different treatments How can we decide?.
Advertisements

Economic evaluations alongside clinical trials: what they contribute, how they are performed and their limitations Dr. Stavros Petrou Presentation to Nottingham.
University of Sheffield [November/2013] School Of Health And Related.
Highly Specialised Technologies Evaluations
Drug appraisal organisations: A comparison of SMC and NICE John Ford, University of Aberdeen Norman Waugh, Warwick Evidence Pawana Sharma, University of.
Sophie Whyte 1, Simon Dixon 1,Rita Faria 2, Simon Walker 2, Mark Sculpher 2, Stephen Palmer 2 1 ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 2 CHE,
Exploring uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis NICE International and HITAP copyright © 2013 Francis Ruiz NICE International (acknowledgements to:
Evidence in action – moving from guidance to review
NICE and NICE’s equality programme in 2012 Nick Doyle Clinical and public health analyst.
1 A Health Economic View on Borderline Personality Disorder Prof. dr. Jan Busschbach Viersprong Institute for studies on Personality Disorders Medical.
Creating Better Health and Care Services An overview of a Better Health and Care Review process.
Balancing cost- effectiveness with other values: the NICE experience Stirling Bryan Department of Health Economics.
1 Interactive Introduction cost effectiveness Jan J. v. Busschbach, Ph.D. Psychotherapeutic Centrum ‘De Viersprong’, Halsteren
CADTH Therapeutic Reviews
Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in the UK - Lessons from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre.
Departing from the health maximisation approach Social value judgements made by NICE’s advisory committees Koonal K. Shah Office of Health Economics, UK.
1 Dyslexia and Cost Effectiveness Prof. dr. Jan van Busschbach De Viersprong Erasmus MC.
Standards Debate at the Centre for Better Managed Health Care, Cass Business School, City University London, 26 th October Professor Mike Kelly Director.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK – Experience and Impact Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics.
Introducing NICE... Gateshead Council Gillian Mathews Implementation consultant - north.
1 EuroQol EQ-5D Jan J. V. Busschbach, Ph.D Psychotherapeutic Centrum ‘De Viersprong’, Halsteren Department of Medical.
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines
1 EQ-5D, HUI and SF-36 Of the shelf instruments…..
Current Approaches in European Health Care Policy What models can balance the needs of payors and industry?
Overview of the EQ-5D Purpose and origins of the descriptive system.
Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the NHS Dr Jacqueline Dutchak, Director National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care 16 January 2004.
NICE Decision Making Dr Katherine Payne North West Genetics Knowledge Park The University of Manchester
Is healthcare any good for patients? Measuring health outcomes using EQ-5D Professor Paul Kind Principal Investigator Outcomes Research Group Centre for.
NICE: what it is and how it works Professor David Haslam, Chair, NICE 10 th June 2015.
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE Health economics Ross Lawrenson.
Why use the EQ-5D? What are the alternatives?. What are the alternatives for Direct valuation? Other VAS Time Trade-Off Standard Gamble Willingness to.
Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds Professor of Health Economics
1 Patient values or values from the general public.
1 Balancing Rights & Choice With Risks & Responsibilities.
Basic Economic Analysis David Epstein, Centre for Health Economics, York.
Plymouth Health Community NICE Guidance Implementation Group Workshop Two: Debriding agents and specialist wound care clinics. Pressure ulcer risk assessment.
Supporting Informed Formulary Decision Making: CADTH’s Common Drug Review Denis Bélanger, Director, CADTH New Brunswick Stroke Summit November 27, 2010,
Interactive Introduction cost effectiveness Jan J. v. Busschbach, Ph.D Viersprong Institute for studies on Personality Disorders (VISPD)
1 EQ-5D, HUI and SF-36 Of the shelf instruments…..
How Can Cost Effectiveness Analysis Be Made More Relevant to U.S. Health Care? Paul G. Barnett, PhD February 29, 2012.
Cost-Effectiveness of Psychotherapy for Personality Disorders Soeteman, Busschbach, Verheul.
Cost-effectiveness in the quest to convince the outside world Dr. Jan Busschbach De Viersprong Erasmus MC
1 Interactive Introduction Cost Effectiveness and Psychotherapy Jan J. v. Busschbach, Ph.D. Psychotherapeutic Centrum ‘De Viersprong’, Halsteren
Hermann P. G. Schneider, Alastair H. MacLennan and David Feeny
“What’s in it for us?” NICE Guideline: Safe and Effective use of Medicines (Medicines Optimisation) Erin Whittingham Public Involvement Adviser Public.
How will we know whether this technology is appropriate? OR New procedures, NICE and Specialist Societies Bruce Campbell Chairman NICE Interventional Procedures.
“Introduction to Patient Preference Methods used for QALYs” Presented by: Jan Busschbach, PhD, Chair Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department.
Cost-Effectiveness of Psychotherapy (for Personality Disorders) Prof. dr. Jan van Busschbach.
Risk Sharing Schemes Dr Rafiq Hasan Director of Market Access
NATIONAL INITIATIVES: BEST PRACTICE AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM SCOTTISH EXPERIENCE Alan MacDonald Vice Chairman Scottish Medicines Consortium Hard Choices.
Guidelines Recommandations. Role Ideal mediator for bridging between research findings and actual clinical practice Ideal tool for professionals, managers,
(Cost-)Effectiveness of Psychotherapy for Personality Disorders Jan van Busschbach Prof. Dr. J. van Busschbach Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy.
NICE Policy Update Michael Rawlins Chairman, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London Emeritus Professor, University of Newcastle.
Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Heidi Livingstone, Senior Public Involvement Adviser.
Who is involved in making NICE guidance recommendations and what evidence do they look at? Jane Cowl, Senior Public Involvement Adviser Tommy Wilkinson,
Advancing Health Economics, Services, Policy and Ethics Stuart Peacock Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency Canadian Centre for Applied Research in.
Statistical issues and challenges in health technology evaluation: NICE (UK) experience of clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment. James Oyee Research.
1 Cost-Effectiveness in Medicine An Interactive Introduction  Jan J. v. Busschbach, Ph.D.  Erasmus MC Institute for Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy.
The burden of disease in patients with personality disorder indicated for psychotherapy: Arguments for necessity of care Djøra Soeteman, MSc
‘PhysioDirect’ for patients with MSK problems ECONOMIC MODEL OVERVIEW.
Evidence-based Medicine
Patient Involvement in the HTA Decision Making Process
The NICE Citizens Council and the role of social value judgements
Is healthcare any good for patients
Marta Soares, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Health Economics
Professor of Health Economics
NICE has many methods and processes
Measuring outcomes Emma Frew October 2012.
How to Measure Quality of Life
Presentation transcript:

Governance and Public Policy: a NICE example John Brazier Professor of Health Economics, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK With thanks to Matt Stevenson for up to date slides ESRC Seminar on The Politics of Wellbeing Seminar 3 – Governance and Public Policy, 23rd September 2014

The problem Resources constrained Demands/needs >resources Choices need to be made, but how?

Cost-difference + - Effect-difference + - I II III IV Cost-effectiveness threshold (e.g. £20,000 per Cost-effectiveness decision rule for new intervention

NICE Technology Appraisals Technology appraisals are recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS (National Health Service) Recommendations (made by an appraisal committee) are based on reviews of the clinical evidence and economic evidence - the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over and above existing treatments The NHS is legally obliged to fund and resource medicines and treatments recommended by NICE's technology appraisals if their doctor believes it is clinically appropriate

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) Source: Drummond et al, 1997

Efficacy data from a trial

How can we convert these data into QALYs?

Results: Putting clinical data together with quality of life

The BIG questions 1.How should health be described? 2.How should it to be valued? 3.Who should value it?

EQ-5D By ticking one answer in each group below, please indicate which statements best describe your own health state TODAY. Please tick one 1. Mobility I have no problems in walking about  I have some problems in walking about  I am confined to bed  2. Self-care I have no problems with self-care  I have some problems washing or dressing myself  I am unable to wash or dress myself  3.Usual Activities I have no problems with performing my usual activities  (e.g. work, study, housework, family or leisure activities) I have some problems with performing my usual activities  I am unable to perform my usual activities  4.Pain/Discomfort I have no pain or discomfort  I have moderate pain or discomfort  I have extreme pain or discomfort  5.Anxiety/Depression I am not anxious or depressed  I am moderately anxious or depressed  I am extremely anxious or depressed 

How does the Appraisal committee use this stuff?

NICE Appraisal Committees Four independent advisory committees ≈ 30 Committee Members drawn from:NHS, Patient / Carer Organisations, Academia, pharmaceutical (and medical devices) industries The advice of the AC is independent of vested interests – Those with conflicts of interest (intervention or comparator) cannot attend

Two forms of appraisals Single Technology Appraisal (STA) - a single technology for a single indication Multiple Technology Appraisal (MTA) - normally covers more than one technology, or one technology for more than one indication

STAs Evidence provided by the manufacturer Critiqued by an Evidence Review Group (ERG) who assess the: clinical evidence; mathematical model; validity of results produced; and interpretation of the results. Amend model as necessary ERG’s are encouraged to produce an ‘ERG most plausible’ incremental cost per QALY gained (henceforth ICER). Not uncommon to see higher ICERs suggested by the ERG Typical duration: 13 weeks from ERG receiving manufacturer’s submission to AC meeting

Scoping a formal scope is released which is consulted on, specifying Intervention Population Comparators (Note that interventions which are widely used in the NHS but not licensed can be a comparator – bevacizumab in macular degeneration) Outcomes Economic analysis

The Methods Guide This document provides the ‘reference case’. This should be adhered to with explicit reasons provided if there is deviation

Cost per QALY thresholds Most plausible ICER ≤ £20,000 : Typically recommended > £20,000 and ≤ £30,000 : ??? (Certainty, Innovation, quality of life insufficiently captured) > £30,000 : Typically not recommended Exceptions: Those treatments that meet the end of life (EoL) criteria Empirically-based data suggest true threshold could be <£13,000 per QALY gained

Logistics of an AC Presentations are made by NICE AC members Clinical experts and patient representatives attend to provide evidence The manufacturer(s) attend to answer question provided by the AC and to highlight factual inaccuracies The majority of the meeting is undertaken in public although the final decision is made in private

Process Common discussion points Extrapolation of immature data Generalisability of trial populations to population to be treated Quality of life data…… aim for consensus, where the decision is contentious it may require a ‘secret’ vote Post-decision Consultation process with stakeholders Appeals procedure – reviewed by panel

NICE Recommendations 1 st March 2000 to 31 st July 2014

Political Pressure

Considerable political pressure EoL – little empirical basis for this Cancer Drugs Fund – A Government initiative that undermines the NICE process Value based pricing. DH attempt to introduce explicit pricing largely scuppered Contentious negative decisions may be delayed Turning Tide?? Charities criticise manufacturer over price of Trastuzumab Emtansine

Disinvestment NICE undertake very few disinvestment appraisals Disinvestment in technologies currently bought are left to the funders If the ICERs of displaced technologies are low, positive decisions may be harming societal health

Other NICE committees Highly specialised technologies (very rare conditions) Diagnostics NICE Clinical Guidelines NICE Public Health Vaccines Last three not mandatory funding for positive recommendations

Discussion points Process aims to provide transparent, independent, and legally challengeable advice to NICE – this system has many years of experience BUT: What do you think about this degree of quantification? Do you like the ‘economics’ framework….? Can it be adapted to well-being through well-being adjusted life years (WELBYS?) Can you see it working in other areas of Government – particularly for costly national policies? Do you think having a technocratic arms length organisation is helpful in making these choices?

Thank you! Any questions?