The 2nd HPD report - Health Policy Monitor

keep products eligible for reimbursement, the pharmaceutical
industry provides comprehensive studies on efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
Some concerns currently center on the confidentiality
of pharmaceutical industry evidence, which sits uneasily with the
desired transparency of the NICE appraisal process.
Also actively lobbying are associations representing people
with special illnesses, who may be particularly affected by NICE
recommendations. For example, people with multiple sclerosis
may not be covered for interferon therapy. Critics point out that
NICE, essentially a scientific committee, failed to take the social
context of recommendations into account as much as necessary.
Meanwhile, an advisory group comprising members of the public
has been established.
Some problems may arise. The requirement to fund positive
NICE decisions may distort priorities; even more effective treatments
(not assessed by NICE) may be displaced to fund treatments
it has assessed.
Sources and further reading:
House of Commons Health Committee. “Review of the
National Institute for Clinical Excellence.” 2002.
Oliver, Adam, Elias Mossialos and Ray Robinson. “Health
technology assessment and its influence on health care
priority setting.” International Journal of Health Technology
Assessment (in press). 2004.
WHO. Technology appraisal program of the National Institute
for Clinical Excllence: A review by WHO. WHO: Regional
Office for Europe, 2003.
www.nice.org.uk
55
Focus on drugs
assessment
Social context
neglected