ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2020
HTA'd in the USA: A Comparison of ICER in the United States with NICE in England and Wales.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Drug pricing models, no 'one-size-fits-all' approach: a systematic review and critical evaluation of pricing models in an evolving pharmaceutical landscape.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Pathing the way from regulatory approval to market access for gene therapy products (GTPs): An integrative review in the US, EU5, Japan and China.Regenerative therapy · 2026Review
- A multi-stakeholder survey on communicating cost-effectiveness uncertainties to stakeholders: a case study of ICER.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Addition of continuous glucose monitoring to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus - An economic evaluation.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Digital multicriteria evaluation of negotiated medicines using Chinese mini-HTA: application of structured methodologies in assessing once-weekly GLP-1 RAs for improved clinical decision-making.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Consideration for Health Disparities in Value Assessment Frameworks.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Priority setting for health technology adoption at the national level: Lessons learned over 25 years' experience.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making?Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Early Cost-Effectiveness and Price Threshold Analyses of Resmetirom: An Investigational Treatment for Management of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Using Economic Evaluation to Inform Responses to the Opioid Epidemic in the United States: Challenges and Suggestions for Future Research.Substance use & misuse · 2022Article
- Portfolio frontier analysis: Applying mean-variance analysis to health technology assessment for health systems under pressure.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- ICER's Version of HTA Is Positioned to Guide U.S. Health Care Reform.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has gained recognition for performing independent health technology assessments (HTAs) that include the cost-effectiveness of selected new technologies in the United States. ICER has similarities with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales, but the amount of overlap and new methods adopted to meet stakeholder needs in the complex U.S. health care system have not been fully analyzed.
objectiveTo perform a comprehensive comparison of ICER and NICE.
methodsWe compared ICER and NICE using the same framework as Drummond et al. (2008), which suggests 4 dimensions for comparison of HTA organizations: structure of HTA programs, methods of HTA, processes for conduct of HTA, and use of HTAs in decision making.
resultsWe found differences between ICER and NICE in the structure of HTA programs (setup of the organizations, governance issues, and funding); methods (perspective, costs, utilities, discounting, and thresholds); process (relationship with relevant stakeholders, deliberative decision-making processes, and timelines); and the use of HTA in decision making (the format and type of evidence generated, how the evidence is considered, and the format of the recommendations).
conclusionsICER uses a different approach for clinical review but performs cost-effectiveness analysis using methods similar to NICE. The key differences between NICE and ICER arise because of important differences between the United Kingdom's "single payer" health care system and the United States's pluralistic system. ICER's lack of mandatory power translates to substantial differences in terms of its processes and type of recommendations. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Thokala has received grants from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) for modeling projects. Carlson has received grants from ICER, unrelated to this study. Drummond has nothing to disclose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.