Match!

Sunlit Uplands: The Genius of the NICE Reference Case

Published on Jul 5, 2016in Innovations in pharmacy
· DOI :10.24926/iip.v7i2.435
Paul C Langley16
Estimated H-index: 16
(UMN: University of Minnesota)
Abstract
The NICE reference case has received widespread acceptance in health technology assessment. The lifetime cost-per-QALY model and constructed claims for product impact have been widely emulated in country-specific guidelines for formulary submission as well as in publications in the leading health technology journals. Unfortunately, from the perspective of the standards of normal science, adherence to the reference case standard means that the claims made are typically non-evaluable. They have to be taken at face value. They may suggest potential evaluable hypotheses for clinical and cost-effectiveness claims, but there is no requirement in the reference case for claims to be put in an evaluable form and for manufacturers to suggest possible protocols for product impact assessment. This is not an acceptable situation. Absent the standards for falsification and replication, which are at the core of the scientific method, we have no idea whether the claims accepted by NICE are right or even if they are wrong. If we accept the reference case paradigm should we conclude that the sunlit uplands of formulary decisions based on non-evaluable simulated claims for cost-effectiveness has been reached? Have we rejected natural selection in favor of intelligent design? Conflict of Interest None Type: Commentary
  • References (18)
  • Citations (5)
References18
Newest
#1Jan Beyer-Westendorf (TUD: Dresden University of Technology)H-Index: 6
#2Birgit Ehlken (IMS Health)H-Index: 16
Last.Thomas Evers (Bayer AG: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals)H-Index: 7
view all 3 authors...
61 CitationsSource
#1Colin F. Camerer (California Institute of Technology)H-Index: 102
#2Anna Dreber (HHS: Stockholm School of Economics)H-Index: 30
Last.Hang Wu (NUS: National University of Singapore)H-Index: 2
view all 18 authors...
201 CitationsSource
#1Tomas Forslund (Karolinska University Hospital)H-Index: 8
#2Björn Wettermark (Karolinska University Hospital)H-Index: 35
Last.Paul Hjemdahl (Karolinska University Hospital)H-Index: 55
view all 3 authors...
52 CitationsSource
#1Xiaoxi Yao (Mayo Clinic)H-Index: 13
#2Neena Susan Abraham (Mayo Clinic)H-Index: 32
Last.Peter A. Noseworthy (Mayo Clinic)H-Index: 32
view all 9 authors...
164 CitationsSource
#1David WoottonH-Index: 15
18 Citations
#1Paul C Langley (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 16
18 CitationsSource
#1Paul C Langley (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 16
8 CitationsSource
#1T. WasserH-Index: 3
#2Kevin HaynesH-Index: 30
Last.Mark J. CzirakyH-Index: 20
view all 4 authors...
13 CitationsSource
#1Ariel BeresniakH-Index: 9
#2Thibaut CarubaH-Index: 10
Last.Nicolas DanchinH-Index: 70
view all 6 authors...
3 CitationsSource
#1Carlos MartinezH-Index: 7
#2Anja KatholingH-Index: 7
Last.Saul Benedict Freedman (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 24
view all 4 authors...
92 CitationsSource
Cited By5
Newest
#1Kathryn M Antioch (Monash University)H-Index: 4
#2Michael Drummond (Ebor: University of York)H-Index: 72
Last.Hindrik VondelingH-Index: 14
view all 4 authors...
7 CitationsSource
#1Paul C Langley (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 16
2 CitationsSource
#1Paul C Langley (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 16
Source
#1Paul C Langley (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 16
1 CitationsSource
#1Paul C Langley (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 16
5 CitationsSource