Abstract
Letters: Not so NICE
Tony Culyer and colleagues write about the question of a ‘‘‘threshold’’ figure for the cost of an additional quality-adjusted life-year above which a technology will not be recommended’. They go on to argue that ‘[it] is not NICE’s constitutional role to determine the value of an additional QALY since the setting of the NHS budget is properly a matter for parliament’. We would agree with that last statement or at least one that says that it is the society’s or community’s voice in some way which should set that threshold. However, we want to add an important caveat.
Tony Culyer and colleagues write about the question of a ‘‘‘threshold’’ figure for the cost of an additional quality-adjusted life-year above which a technology will not be recommended’. They go on to argue that ‘[it] is not NICE’s constitutional role to determine the value of an additional QALY since the setting of the NHS budget is properly a matter for parliament’. We would agree with that last statement or at least one that says that it is the society’s or community’s voice in some way which should set that threshold. However, we want to add an important caveat.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 190-191 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | Journal of Health Services Research and Policy |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2007 |
