Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal

B-Tier
Journal: Health Economics
Year: 2016
Volume: 25
Issue: 8
Pages: 933-938

Authors (10)

Alec Morton (not in RePEc) Amanda I. Adler (not in RePEc) David Bell (University of Stirling) Andrew Briggs (not in RePEc) Werner Brouwer (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam) Karl Claxton (not in RePEc) Neil Craig (not in RePEc) Alastair Fischer (not in RePEc) Peter McGregor (University of Strathclyde) Pieter van Baal (not in RePEc)

Score contribution per author:

0.201 = (α=2.01 / 10 authors) × 1.0x B-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

In this editorial, we consider the vexing issue of ‘unrelated future costs’ (for example, the costs of caring for people with dementia or kidney failure after preventing their deaths from a heart attack). The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance is not to take such costs into account in technology appraisals. However, standard appraisal practice involves modelling the benefits of those unrelated technologies. We argue that there is a sound principled reason for including both the costs and benefits of unrelated care. Changing this practice would have material consequences for decisions about reimbursing particular technologies, and we urge future research to understand this better. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:wly:hlthec:v:25:y:2016:i:8:p:933-938
Journal Field
Health
Author Count
10
Added to Database
2026-01-24