Cost-benefit analysis/Addendum: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner (New page: {{subpages}} <!-- • Below an ICER of £20,000 per QALY, judgements about the acceptability of a technology as an effective use of NHS resources are based primarily on the cost effective...) |
imported>Nick Gardner No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
100. To assess cost-effectiveness, the QALY score is integrated with the price of treatment | |||
using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). This represents the change in costs | |||
in relation to the change in health status. The result is a ‘cost per QALY’ figure, which | |||
allows NICE to determine the cost-effectiveness of the treatment. | |||
101. NICE has stated that it uses a “threshold range” to determine whether the cost per | |||
QALY of a treatment offers value for money. It provides its advisory bodies with a | |||
framework for decision-making as follows: | |||
• Below an ICER of £20,000 per QALY, judgements about the acceptability of a | • Below an ICER of £20,000 per QALY, judgements about the acceptability of a | ||
technology as an effective use of NHS resources are based primarily on the cost | technology as an effective use of NHS resources are based primarily on the cost | ||
| Line 13: | Line 21: | ||
factors has to be increasingly strong. Recommendations for interventions costing more | factors has to be increasingly strong. Recommendations for interventions costing more | ||
than £20–£30,000 per QALY must be explained | than £20–£30,000 per QALY must be explained | ||
<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhealth/27/27.pdf ''National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence'', The House of Commons Health Committee, First Report of Session 2007–08, 17 December 2007}</ref> | |||
--> | --> | ||
Revision as of 10:47, 14 July 2010
