ArticleJournal of medical ethics2022
Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Drives Public Preference for Rare Drugs Coverage in China? Insights From a Multi-Center Discrete Choice Experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Harnessing health economic evaluation for policy and practice.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- The Value of Flexible Vaccine Manufacturing Capacity: Value Drivers, Estimation Methods, and Approaches to Value Recognition in Health Technology Assessment.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Review
- An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- An Industry Survey on Unmet Needs in South Korea's New Drug Listing System.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- Severity as a moral qualifier of malady.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Ethics of access to newly approved expensive medical treatments: multi-stakeholder dialogues in a publicly funded healthcare system.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Cell and gene therapy regulatory, pricing, and reimbursement framework: With a focus on South Korea and the EU.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Rule of Prevention: a potential framework to evaluate preventive interventions for rare diseases.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023Article
- Resource allocation in the Covid-19 health crisis: are Covid-19 preventive measures consistent with the Rule of Rescue?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the UK's main healthcare priority-setting body, recently reaffirmed a longstanding claim that in recommending technologies to the National Health Service it cannot apply the 'rule of rescue'. This paper explores this claim by identifying key characteristics of the rule and establishing to what extent these are also features of NICE's approach to evaluating ultra-orphan drugs through its highly specialised technologies (HST) programme. It argues that although NICE in all likelihood does not act because of the rule in prioritising these drugs, its actions in relation to HSTs are nevertheless in accordance with the rule and are not explained by the full articulation of any alternative set of rationales. That is, though NICE implies that its approach to HSTs is not motivated by the rule of rescue, it is not explicit about what else might justify this approach given NICE's general concern with overall population need and value for money. As such, given NICE's reliance on notions of procedural justice and its commitment to making the reasons for its priority-setting decisions public, the paper concludes that NICE's claim to reject the rule is unhelpful and that NICE does not currently meet its own definition of a fair and transparent decision-maker.
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.