Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32321496›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Willingness to pay for new medicines: a step towards narrowing the gap between NICE and IQWiG.

Afschin Gandjour

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Model-Based Estimate of the Cost-Effectiveness Threshold in Germany.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. On the role of data, statistics and decisions in a pandemic.Advances in statistical analysis : AStA : a journal of the German Statistical Society · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Afschin GandjourFrankfurt School of Finance and Management, Adickesallee 32-34, 60322, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. a.gandjour@fs.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4262-8344

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe question of how to set the cost-effectiveness threshold for new, innovative medicines is a matter of ongoing controversy. One prominent proposal suggests that the cost-effectiveness threshold adopted by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) should represent the opportunity cost for the U.K. National Health Service resulting from the adoption of new medicines. The purpose of this article is to compare this proposal for the U.K. with the approach chosen by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) in Germany, which relies on indication-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds. MAIN TEXT: The 'ideal' NICE and IQWiG surprisingly share the fundamental principle of inferring the willingness to pay from existing care. For this and other reasons, indication-specific thresholds based on IQWiG's methodology do not lead to more inefficiency at the health system's level than a generic threshold based on the 'ideal' NICE (keeping other conditions the same). Also, applying either decision rule to one country will yield a similar long-term growth in population spending. Assuming that everything else is equal, both decision rules are predicted to decrease long-term expenditure growth. Convergence of the two decision rules would require, among others, ruling out waste in the 'ideal' NICE's approach and, for IQWiG's approach, using the same relative weights for life expectancy and health-related quality of life as the quality-adjusted-life-year model.

conclusionThis article shows that both decision rules have notable commonalities in terms of inferring the willingness to pay from existing care and the projected impact on long-term growth in population spending.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesFinancing, PersonalState MedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisGermanyHumansPrescription DrugsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of Health CareQuality of LifePrescription DrugsCost-effectivenessIQWiGNICEThreshold

Identifiers

PMID32321496
PMCPMC7178559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.