Accessibility statement

Establishing the value for money of investing in an intervention that releases resources and reduces future expected health gains among recipients

Thursday 13 December 2018, 12.15PM to -1.15pm

Speaker(s): Dr Susan Griffin, CHE, University of York

Abstract: NICE commissioned a review of whether the threshold used to determine value for money should be the same for interventions that decrease health as for interventions that increase health. NICE was concerned about the risk for inconsistencies in decision making without formal advice to committees, depending on how social value arguments are considered.

To set the context we review NICE documentation on appraisal and social value judgements, detailing what it implies for how committees should interpret and apply the threshold, and whether specific mention is given to interventions that decrease health. We consider the extent to which committees have been presented with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) located in the South West quadrant of a cost-effectiveness plane (less cost and less health than the comparator).  

Next, we review concepts relating to willingness to pay and willingness to accept, and link these to the NICE decision making context as a social decision maker, making decisions on behalf of others, about which interventions to include in universal health coverage. We summarise previous papers that have considered the application of a kinked threshold, and provide an illustration of the practical implications of applying different thresholds by quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane.

NICE Committees rarely see ICERs in the South West of the cost-effectiveness plane. The application of a different threshold in these circumstances would not address concerns about disinvestment or individual loss aversion. NICE recommendations can lead to investment and disinvestment in services regardless of where the ICER is in the cost-effectiveness plane. The ICER, composed of the average difference in cost divided by the average difference in effect, does not enable consideration of the distribution of individual health losses and gains. Application of a kinked threshold is incompatible with maximising health gains from available resources. While NICE does depart from health maximisation, by applying different thresholds in end of life and highly specialised technologies, it would be difficult to develop a case of support for a different threshold to be applied when an ICER is presented in the South West quadrant.

Location: Alcuin A Block A019/20

Who to contact

For more information on these seminars, contact:
Alfredo Palacios
alfredo.palacios@york.ac.uk
Shainur Premji
shainur.premji@york.ac.uk

If you are not a member of University of York staff and are interested in attending a seminar, please contact
alfredo.palacios@york.ac.uk 
or
shainur.premji@york.ac.uk 
so that we can ensure we have sufficient space

Economic evaluation seminar dates

  • Thursday 17 January
    Edward Cox, CHE, University of York
  • Thursday 21 February
    Sebastian Hinde, CHE, University of York
  • Thursday 21 March
    Alessandro Grosso, CHE, University of York