Challenges for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence

The Use of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-II With Forensic Populations: A Psychometric Critique

The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-II (STAXI-II) is a psychometric assessment that measures the experience, expression, and control of anger in research and clinical settings. Although the STAXI-II is extensively used and its psychometric properties supported, no psychometric critique has yet specifically assessed its utility with forensic populations. The aim of this critique was to explore the validity and reliability of the STAXI-II when used with forensic samples. It was found that the psychometric properties of the STAXI-II, when used with forensic populations, are satisfactory. However, gaps in research and issues that need to be addressed in practice have been highlighted. Although STAXI-II provides a comprehensive measure of anger, it does not capture all aspects of the construct. In addition, the tool does not contain an inherent validity scale, indicating the need to control for social desirability responding when administering the STAXI-II. Practical implications, limitations, and future research will be discussed.

Efficiency, Equity, and Budgetary Policies

The standard decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis either require the decision maker to set a threshold willingness to pay for additional health care or to set an overall fixed budget. In practice, neither are generally taken, but instead an arbitrary decision rule is followed that may not be consistent with the overall budget, lead to an allocation of resources that is less than optimal, and is unable to identify the program that should be displaced at the margin. Recent work has shown how mathematical programming can be used as a generalization of the standard decision rules. The authors extend the use of mathematical programming, first to incorporate more complex budgetary rules about when expenditure can be incurred, and show the opportunity loss, in terms of health benefit forgone, of each budgetary policy. Second, the authors demonstrate that indivisibility in a patient population can be regarded as essentially a concern for horizontal equity and represent this and other equity concerns as constraints in the program. Third, the authors estimate the different opportunity costs of a range of equity concerns applied to particular patient populations, and when imposed on all patient populations. They apply this framework of analysis to a realistic and policy-relevant problem. Key words: cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-benefit analysis; mathematical programming; resource allocation. (Med Decis Making 2007;27:128—137)

A "liberalização" do Serviço Nacional de Saúde da Inglaterra: trajetória e riscos para o direito à saúde

Resumo: A recente reforma do Serviço Nacional de Saúde (NHS) inglês por meio do Health and Social Care Act de 2012 introduziu mudanças importantes na organização, gestão e prestação de serviços públicos de saúde na Inglaterra. O objetivo deste estudo é analisar as reformas do NHS no contexto histórico de predomínio de teorias neoliberais desde 1980 e discutir o processo de "liberalização" do NHS. São identificados e analisados três momentos: (i) gradativa substituição ideológica e teórica (1979-1990) - transição da lógica profissional e sanitária para uma lógica gerencial/comercial; (ii) burocracia e mercado incipiente (1991-2004) - estruturação de burocracia voltada à administração do mercado interno e expansão de medidas pró-mercado; e (iii) abertura ao mercado, fragmentação e descontinuidade de serviços (2005-2012) - fragilização do modelo de saúde territorial e consolidação da saúde como um mercado aberto a prestadores públicos e privados. Esse processo gradual e constante de liberalização vem levando ao fechamento de serviços e à restrição do acesso, comprometendo a integralidade, a equidade e o direito universal à saúde no NHS.

Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

Over the past decade, public distrust in unavoidable value-laden decisions on the allocation of resources to new health technologies has grown. In response, healthcare organizations have made considerable efforts to improve their acceptability by increasing transparency in decision-making processes. However, the social value judgments (distributive preferences of the public) embedded in them have yet to be defined. While the need to explicate such judgments has become widely recognized, the most appropriate approach to accomplishing this remains unclear. The aims of this review were to identify factors around which distributive preferences of the public have been sought, create a list of social values proposed or used in current resource allocation decision-making processes for new health technologies, and review approaches to eliciting such values from the general public. Social values proposed or used in making resource allocation decisions for new health technologies were identified through three approaches: (i) a comprehensive review of published, peer-reviewed, empirical studies of public preferences for the distribution of healthcare; (ii) an analysis of non-technical factors or social value statements considered by technology funding decision-making processes in Canada and abroad; and (iii) a review of appeals to funding decisions on grounds in part related to social value judgments. A total of 34 empirical studies, 10 technology funding decision-making processes, and 12 appeals to decisions were identified and reviewed. The key factors/patient characteristics addressed through policy statements and around which distributive preferences of the public have been sought included severity of illness, immediate need, age (and its relationship to lifetime health), health gain (amount and final outcome/health state), personal responsibility for illness, caregiving responsibilities, and number of patients who could benefit (rarity). Empirical studies typically examined the importance of these factors in isolation. Therefore, the extent to which preferences around one factor may be modified in the presence of others is still unclear. Research that seeks to clarify interactions among factors by asking the public to weigh several of them at once is needed to ensure the relevance of elicited preferences to real-world technology funding decisions.

To fund or not to fund: development of a decision-making framework for the coverage of new health technologies

BACKGROUND

Attempts to improve the acceptability of resource allocation decisions around new health technologies have spanned many years, fields and disciplines. Various theories of decision making have been tested and methods piloted, but, despite their availability, evidence of sustained uptake is limited. Since the challenge of determining which of many technologies to fund is one that healthcare systems have faced since their inception, an analysis of actual processes, criticisms confronted and approaches used to manage them may serve to guide the development of an 'evidence-informed' decision-making framework for improving the acceptability of decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a technology funding decision-making framework informed by the experiences of multiple healthcare systems and the views of senior-level decision makers in Canada.

METHODS

A 1-day, facilitated workshop was held with 16 senior-level healthcare decision makers in Canada. International examples of actual technology funding decision-making processes were presented. Participants discussed key elements of these processes, debated strengths and weaknesses and highlighted unresolved challenges. The findings were used to construct a technology decision-making framework on which participant feedback was then sought. Its relevance, content, structure and feasibility were further assessed through key informant interviews with ten additional senior-level decision makers.

RESULTS

Six main issues surrounding current processes were raised: (i) timeliness; (ii) methodological considerations; (iii) interpretations of 'value for money'; (iv) explication of social values; (v) stakeholder engagement; and (vi) 'accountability for reasonableness'. While no attempt was made to force consensus on what should constitute each of these, there was widespread agreement on questions that must be addressed through a 'robust' process. These questions, grouped and ordered into three phases, became the final framework.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision-making framework informed by processes in other jurisdictions and the views of local decision makers was developed. Pilot testing underway in one Canadian jurisdiction will identify any further refinements needed to optimize its usefulness.

Adjusting life for quality or disability: stylistic difference or substantial dispute?

This paper focuses on the contrast between describing the benefit of a healthcare intervention as gain in health (QALY-type ideas) or a disability reduction (DALY-type ideas). The background is an apparent convergence in practice of the work conducted under both traditions. In the light of these methodological developments, we contrast a health planner who wants to maximise health and one who wants to minimise disability. To isolate the effect of framing the problem from a health or a disability perspective, we do not use age-weighting in calculating DALY and employ a common discounting methodology and the same set of quality of life weights. We find that interventions will be ranked in a systematically different way. The difference, however, is not determined by the use of a health or a disability perspective but by the use of life expectancy tables to determine the years of life lost. We show that this feature of the DALY method is problematic and we suggest its dismissal in favour of a fixed reference age rendering the use of a health or a disability perspective merely stylistic.

Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data

Debate about the monetary value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) has existed in the health economics literature for some time. More recently, concern about such a value has arisen in UK health policy. This paper reports on an attempt to 'model' a willingness-to-pay-based value of a QALY from the existing value of preventing a statistical fatality (VPF) currently used in UK public sector decision making. Two methods of deriving the value of a QALY from the existing UK VPF are outlined: one conventional and one new. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches are discussed as well as the implications of the results for policy and health economic evaluation methodology.

Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement reforms in Greece

Pharmaceutical price regulation in Greece is centralized. The National Drug Organization (EOF) is the main regulatory authority functioning under the auspices of the Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity. In 2004, total pharmaceutical expenditure in Greece reached the level of 2.9 billion euro, of which 77.9% were public expenditure and the remaining 22.1% private. According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data the total per-capita expenditure on pharmaceutical care in Greece is among the lowest in Europe, representing 58% of the EU-12 average. In 1998, Greece introduced a reimbursement list, and the lowest reference pricing system among the 15 European Union member states with the purpose of controlling the growth of pharmaceutical expenditure. The measures proved to be ineffective since pharmaceutical expenditure, after a short-term reduction, continued to increase at similar rates to those before the introduction of price control mechanisms. The average annual increase of pharmaceutical expenditure in Greece over the period 1998-2003 was 7.9%, which is among the highest in the OECD countries (average 6.1%). New pharmaceutical legislation, no. 3457, was enacted on May 8th 2006, aiming at greater access to medicines, improvements to citizens' quality of life, effective and efficient utilization of health resources, transparency in public management, protecting public health, and maintaining long-term financial viability of the insurance system. The innovative aspect of the new legislation is the abolition of the positive list and the establishment of a rebate system granting the National Insurance Funds a rebate rate paid by the pharmaceutical companies. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First to assess the effectiveness of the positive list introduced in 1988 in Greece, using simple econometric models. Second to present the recent pharmaceutical reforms aimed at the introduction of a rebate system and establishing reimbursement pricing based on the average of the three lowest European prices.

Having your cake and eating it: office of fair trading proposal for funding new drugs to benefit patients and innovative companies

There are insufficient resources in the UK to fund all new technologies and new indications approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diverting funding from existing sources will have a detrimental effect on the provision of other priority services. The UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) recently suggested a value-based pricing approach that appears workable but has generated considerable debate. Their proposal of a 25% premium for the originator product once generics are available is more generous than seen in a number of other European countries, where typically only the lowest priced product is reimbursed. The OFT proposal for a maximum 50% premium for patent-protected products, versus the prices of generics in a class or related classes, is also more generous than the proposed reforms for the pricing of proton pump inhibitors in Sweden or current reforms in Germany. In our opinion, the OFT proposals are persuasive and in accordance with the reforms seen in other European countries, and therefore should be adopted. The alternatives to fully funding new drugs or new indications as approved by NICE are either tightening the cost per QALY threshold, giving NICE an annual national budget to fund its advice alongside suggested areas for disinvestment, proactively switching patients from high-cost brand-name drugs to generics, or further delaying funding for new drugs and new indications approved by NICE. The majority of these suggestions are not in the best interests of patients or innovative pharmaceutical companies seeking to reap the rewards of their efforts.

Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence only appraise new pharmaceuticals?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative extent to which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraises new versus existing technologies, and pharmaceutical versus nonpharmaceutical health technologies.

METHODS

We categorized technologies within NICE appraisals published between March 2000 and June 2006 by type and classified them as new or existing using the timeline between launch in the United Kingdom and referral to NICE. We used a 3-year postlaunch cutoff to determine whether a technology was new, with a sensitivity analysis of 1 and 5 years.

RESULTS

We reviewed 159 technologies from 88 appraisals. Of these, 84 (53 percent) were new (sensitivity analysis 36 to 67 percent) and 75 (47 percent) were existing technologies. A total of 119 (75 percent) were pharmaceuticals, 22 (14 percent) were devices, 14 (9 percent) were procedures, and 4 (3 percent) were categorized as miscellaneous. Classification according to newness and technology type showed that 62 percent (42 to 75 percent) of the pharmaceuticals appraised were new.

CONCLUSIONS

By developing and applying a definition of new, we have found that the criticism of the bias toward new technologies is unfounded when applied to the appraisal program overall. At the same time, new pharmaceuticals are over-represented in the program compared with devices and procedures. This domination may cause inflationary pressures on the health service, but any wholesale move away from the technological frontier may be more costly.

Questioning specialists' attitudes to breast cancer follow-up in primary care

BACKGROUND

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend discharging asymptomatic breast care patients 3 years after diagnosis. A role for General Practitioners (GPs) and breast care nurses is proposed, together with skills training, but it remains unclear for how long breast cancer patients should be followed up, what tests should be done, and who should be conducting the follow-up. We therefore surveyed Breast Cancer Specialists.

DESIGN

A 20-point questionnaire was sent to 562 Specialists registered in the Cancer Research Clinical Trials Unit database, with questions on case-load, perceptions of follow-up, local policy and opinions on greater primary care involvement.

RESULTS

The most commonly acknowledged purpose of follow-up was detection of treatment-related morbidity. Eighty four percent of respondents adhered to a locally developed protocol with only 9% conforming to NICE guidelines. The median follow-up was 5 years. Significant factors predicting delayed discharge were younger age (P < or = 0.0001); poorer Nottingham Prognostic Index (P = 0.003); treatment factors (P = 0.002); and patient risk factors (P = 0.003). Centres with higher case-loads (>200/year) were more likely to discharge earlier. Reduced workload was perceived as the main benefit of discharge, while lack of GP oncological experience and loss of outcome data were concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialists favour a risk adjusted discharge strategy and increased oncology infrastructure in primary care.

The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals

There are three known criteria that underlie drug reimbursement decisions: therapeutic value, cost effectiveness and burden of disease. However, evidence from recent reimbursement decisions in several jurisdictions points to residual unexplained variables, one of which may be budget impact. An economic rationale for carrying out budget impact analyses is opportunity cost, measured by the economic benefits foregone by using resources in one way rather than another. Under certain assumptions, cost-effectiveness analysis accounts for opportunity cost while conveying to the decision maker the price of maximising health gains, subject to a budget constraint. However, the underlying assumptions are implausible, particularly in the context of pharmaceutical care. Although drugs that are cost effective may lead to unambiguous health gains among patient groups for whom the drugs are indicated, the opportunity costs could conceivably lead to a reduction in aggregate health gains, or failure to meet different kinds of equity considerations. The pertinent policy question is where to find the resources to fund new innovations, such as cost-effective pharmaceuticals, or drugs targeting severe diseases. It may be a matter of redeployment of resources across healthcare sectors, cancelling the funding of (older) pharmaceuticals that are less cost effective, or delisting drugs that are cost effective but target less burdensome conditions.

Outcomes research collaborations between third-party payers, academia, and pharmaceutical manufacturers: What can we learn from clinical research?

Research collaborations between academic researchers, regulatory agencies, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have made the drug development process more efficient and have frequently supported the successful documentation of quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceuticals (the so-called three hurdles). Over recent years issues of drug cost, access, and utilization have moved to center stage, giving rise to a "fourth hurdle approval" process by third-party payers. This requires new forms of collaborative research among new players. This contribution highlights the need for a "triangular" relationship in the field of outcomes research between scientists in academia, third-party payer institutions, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. We discuss, and illustrate by case studies, how successful models of collaboration from the drug development process might be relevant to research activities related to the fourth hurdle. Case studies which may provide useful models for collaborative outcomes research include the "International Conference on Harmonization" process, the voluntary consultation procedures established by drug regulatory agencies, and the Quebec experience in database sharing.

Seven years of feast, seven years of famine: boom to bust in the NHS?

Service improvements in the NHS have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in expenditure. As expenditure growth slows, attention must focus on reforming the incentives faced by NHS staff and institutions rather than on indulging in yet another reorganisation

Centralising drug review to improve coverage decisions: economic lessons from (and for) Canada

Drug coverage decisions require information about clinically relevant benefits and risks, as well as economic information about direct and indirect costs, in comparison with relevant treatment alternatives. A recent Canadian initiative aims to improve the evidentiary basis for drug coverage decisions through centralised evaluation of the clinical and economic value of new drug products. Centralised review can make important, 'positive' contributions to decision making by raising the evidentiary basis for decisions. Even in the absence of a single-payer for medicines, such information can directly inform decisions focussed on matters of technical efficiency. Centralised review also provides necessary but not sufficient information for the many decisions in this sector that concern allocative efficiency and therefore have 'normative' implications. Thus, in addition to processes for collecting and critically assessing clinical and economic data, effective priority setting requires processes at a local level for engaging affected populations in the consideration of the trade-offs inherent in coverage decisions.

Using economic analyses for local priority setting : the population cost-impact approach

INTRODUCTION

Standard methods of economic analysis may not be suitable for local decision making that is specific to a particular population.

BACKGROUND

We describe a new three-step methodology, termed 'population cost-impact analysis', which provides a population perspective to the costs and benefits of alternative interventions. The first two steps involve calculating the population impact and the costs of the proposed interventions relevant to local conditions. This involves the calculation of population impact measures (which have been previously described but are not currently used extensively) - measures of absolute risk and risk reduction, applied to a population denominator. In step three, preferences of policy-makers are obtained. This is in contrast to the QALY approach in which quality weights are obtained as a part of the measurement of benefit.

METHODS

We applied the population cost-impact analysis method to a comparison of two interventions - increasing the use of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) and smoking cessation - after myocardial infarction in a scaled-back notional local population of 100,000 people in England. Twenty-two public health professionals were asked via a questionnaire to rank the order in which they would implement four interventions. They were given information on both population cost impact and QALYs for each intervention.

RESULTS

In a population of 100,000 people, moving from current to best practice for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists and smoking cessation will prevent 11 and 4 deaths (or gain of 127 or 42 life-years), respectively. The cost per event prevented in the next year, or life-year gained, is less for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists than for smoking cessation. Public health professionals were found to be more inclined to rank alternative interventions according to the population cost impact than the QALY approach.

DISCUSSION

The use of the population cost-impact approach allows information on the benefits of moving from current to best practice to be presented in terms of the benefits and costs to a particular population. The process for deciding between alternative interventions in a prioritisation exercise may differ according to the local context. We suggest that the valuation of the benefit is performed after the benefits have been quantified and that it takes into account local issues relevant to prioritisation. It would be an appropriate next step to experiment with, and formalise, this part of the population cost-impact analysis to provide a standardised approach for determining willingness to pay and provide a ranking of priorities.

CONCLUSION

Our method adds a new dimension to economic analysis, the ability to identify costs and benefits of potential interventions to a defined population, which may be of considerable use for policy makers working at the local level.

The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies: issues and challenges ahead

Developing from a previous review, this article revisits the generalisability theme to summarise recent advances in methodology and provide an update of challenges faced by producers and users of pharmacoeconomic data. Our original evaluative criteria encompassed technical issues, applicability and transferability. The technical elements of best practice are comparatively uncontroversial: choosing relevant alternatives; transparent reporting of methods and findings; accessing and applying the best-quality evidence; using best methods to synthesise data; and using deterministic sensitivity analysis to explore potential systematic bias whilst employing probabilistic sensitivity analysis to explore the influence of random error at the whole model level. The applicability of economic findings within their original policy context (e.g. national analyses based on generalisable within-country data) can be determined, provided that best practice guidelines for economic modelling are adhered to. The transferability of economic findings (from one policy setting to another, e.g. country, region, clinical setting or patient population) requires careful exploration of changes in resource implications, unit prices and outcomes, a process facilitated again by transparent reporting of methods, adjustment for baseline risk and potentially by recent statistical developments intended to deal with hierarchically structured data. Although there is considerable consensus in the published literature about these key issues, limitations remain for economic analysis as implemented because of its opaqueness of method, failure to reflect the opportunity cost of decisions and lack of societal mandate. If the primary purpose of health economic evaluation is to help society to obtain the best value from limited resources, then, at a time when most technologically advanced societies need to engage with the realities of limited healthcare funding, technocratic solutions alone appear insufficient. Making health economic findings accessible to patients, clinicians and society, in the form of relevant narratives, will help this essential debate and expose assumptions underpinning economic analysis to broader critical inspection.

Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers

Cost-effectiveness analysis has been advocated in the health economics methods literature and adopted in a growing number of jurisdictions as an evidence base for decision makers charged with maximising health gains from available resources. This paper critically appraises the information generated by cost-effectiveness analysis, in particular the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). It is shown that this ratio is used as comparative information on what are non-comparable options and hence evades the reality of the decision-maker's problem. The theoretical basis for the ICER approach is the simplification of theoretical assumptions that have no relevance to the decision maker's context. Although alternative, well established methods can be used for addressing the decision maker's problem, faced with the increasing evidence of the theoretical and empirical failures of the cost-effectiveness approach, some proponents of the approach now propose changing the research question to suit the approach as opposed to adopting a more appropriate method for the prevailing and continuing problem. As long as decision makers are concerned with making the best use of available healthcare resources, cost-effectiveness analysis and the ICER should not be where we look for answers.

Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK

This article reviews the development of economic evaluation of health technologies in the UK and its impact on decision making. After a long period of limited impact from studies mainly carried out as academic exercises, the advent of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 1999 provided a transparent decision-making context where economic evaluation plays a central role. This article reviews some of the key characteristics about the way NICE works, for example, the way NICE has defined the form of analysis that it requires, reflecting its objective of maximising health gain (QALYs) from the predetermined and limited UK NHS budget. Two broad areas of widespread concern are noted. The first relates to the cost-effectiveness thresholds that NICE uses and the basis for them. The second is the patchy implementation of NICE guidance and the possible reasons for this. But even within the UK, NICE is the exception in making extensive and explicit use of economic evaluation and this article goes on to suggest that if there is to be a more widespread and consistent use of economic evaluation at both central and local levels, then health economists and others need to address three issues. The first is to be clear about what is the correct conceptual basis for determining the cost-effectiveness threshold and then to ensure that NICE has the empirical evidence to set it appropriately. The second is to recognise that even using the limited view of costs adopted by NICE, economic evaluations imply temporal and cross-service budgetary flexibility that the NHS locally does not in practice enjoy. The third issue is that with academic pressures for ever-increasing sophistication of 'state of the art' economic evaluation analysis, the NHS has more and more precise understanding of the cost effectiveness of just a few new technologies and little or no analysis of most. This limits the value of the former by reducing further the scope for appropriately disinvesting from cost-ineffective technologies to meet the additional costs of investing in cost-effective new ones. Whilst NICE stands out as an example of a context where high-quality economic evaluation plays a major role in decision making, the process is far from perfect and certainly is not representative of the use made of economic evaluation by the NHS as a whole. Health economists need to engage with the public and the health service to better understand their perspectives, rather than focusing on academic concerns relating to details of theory and analytical method.

Regulating pharmaceutical markets: improving efficiency and controlling costs in the UK

UK government policy on pharmaceuticals is broadly integrated across the whole of health care policy. In the early 1990s, cost containment was emphasized, through budget holding by doctors to ensure clinical acceptability. From 2000 onwards, increased government funding for the NHS has allowed expansion of services and prescribing in areas of public health importance, but has been coupled with increased accountability and ambitious targets for the process of care and health outcomes. Standards for care are set in national guidelines including those from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE recommends or rejects new technologies to the NHS for their clinical value and cost effectiveness. Although following its advice is mandatory, evidence so far suggests that it has been only partly successful at improving services and eliminating variations. GP prescribing is monitored by Primary Care Organisations (PCO) which also hold the medicines budget. They may provide incentives to GPs for meeting targets in quality or expenditure. The UK government regulates the prices of generics but not of branded medicines; instead it regulates the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry. This arrangement seems to have been successful both at maintaining a major employer and export earner, and in limiting high drug expenditure.

Economic issues in access to medications: schizophrenia treatment in England

Mental health problems and the services to address them are currently receiving more attention in the UK than ever. Mental health care in England--indeed, across the UK--is experiencing a much needed transformation. It is therefore highly pertinent to examine the patterns of psychotropic medication use, given their intended links to recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration, as well as to explore the economic and other factors that appear to influence those patterns. These are the aims of this paper. Our attention will be primarily focused on England. What this analysis shows is that given a higher profile by government, including additional funding (although not really benefiting differentially compared to other parts of the health service) and the first national service framework, it is possible to see changes in service patterns, access and (to a degree) outcomes. These changes are occurring at a time when new classes of psychotropic medication are being introduced in a range of therapeutic areas, contributing to the relatively rapid growth of take-up but also raising questions about appropriateness, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity.

European health policy challenges

Few countries are immune to the international health care 'virus' of reform, with many countries regularly re-cycling changes that shift costs and benefits in ways that are arbitrary, inefficient and offer short term political palliation. Much of this activity has little evidence base and reveals lack of clarity in defining public policy goals, establishing trade-offs and aligning incentive structures with these objectives. Well established failures in health care delivery systems such as variations in medical practice and continuing absence of systematic outcome measurement, have persisted for decades as nations grapple inefficiently with recurring problems of expenditure inflation and waiting times. The lack of emphasis on evidence to inform the efficient management of chronic disease and the reduction of health inequalities is a product of perverse incentives and managerial inertia that maintains the incomes of powerful interest groups.

Rheumatologists' judgements about the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in two neighbouring regions

OBJECTIVES

The requirement in Northern Ireland to prescribe biological agents according to National Institute for Clinical Excellence/British Society for Rheumatology (NICE/BSR) guidelines and within a fixed budget has created a waiting list for treatment that has no parallel in the Republic of Ireland. The study investigated the bearing this situation may have had on consultants' judgements in the respective areas.

METHODS

Seventy-eight case vignettes created from the data on real patients with RA treated with biologicals in the north and south of Ireland were appraised by nine southern and eight northern consultants, who judged the clinical benefit and significance of the patients' condition after a trial of therapy. Quantitative (clinical judgement analysis) and qualitative (focus groups) techniques were used.

RESULTS

Northern consultants perceived a slightly greater degree of clinical benefit after a trial of therapy than southern consultants. Judgement models of northern and southern consultants were broadly comparable. The latter tended to be more uniform in their judgements than the southern group. Focus group discussions with consultants largely validated the findings of the quantitative analysis but revealed how clinical judgement analysis might be misled by gaming strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the absence of overt rationing in the south of Ireland, as far as the judgement of therapeutic benefit from biologicals was concerned, the clinical judgement policies of practitioners were very similar to those in the north. The adoption of NICE/BSR guidelines in the north may have improved the uniformity of clinical practice in Northern Ireland.

Prognosis without treatment as a modifier in health economic assessments

How long someone has to live intuitively seems important in rationing decisions. Incorporating it into economic assessments, as described here, could make decisions fairer