Is NICE losing its standing as a trusted source of guidance?

The Political Sociology of NICE: Investigating Pharmaceutical Cost-Effectiveness Regulation in the UK

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was established a quarter of a century ago in 1999 to regulate the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals (and other health technologies) for the NHS. Drawing on medical sociology theories of corporate bias, neoliberalism, pluralism/polycentricity and regulatory capture, the purpose of this article is to examine the applicability of those theories to NICE as a key regulatory agency in the UK health system. Based on approximately 7 years of documentary research, interviews with expert informants and observations of NICE-related meetings, this paper focuses particularly on NICE's relationship with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry compared with other stakeholder interests at the meso-organisational level. Consideration of the interaction between the UK Government and the pharmaceutical industry in relation to NICE is presented together with the analysis of revolving doors and conflicts of interest of NICE experts/advisors. The nature of policy changes over time (e.g. accelerated assessment pathways and industry fees for regulatory appraisals) and how they relate to the relevant stakeholder interests is also investigated. It is concluded that NICE is largely characterised by neoliberal corporate bias, though some elements of its organisation are also consistent with theories of capture, pluralism and polycentricity.

Fair Funding Decisions: Consistency of the Time Horizons Used in the Calculation of Quality-Adjusted Life Years for Therapies for Very Rare Diseases by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England uses quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments. A QALY is a measure that combines the size of the clinical benefit of a treatment with the time the patient benefits from it, i.e., the time horizon. We wanted to know how consistently QALY gains are calculated at NICE. Therefore, we have analysed information on the time horizons used for the QALY calculations of the concluded evaluations conducted under the Highly Specialised Technologies programme for treatments of very rare diseases at NICE. For treatments with final guidance published by December 2023 (n = 29), a time horizon of median 97.5 years (range: 35 to 125 years) was used to calculate the QALY gains. For most QALY calculations, the accepted time horizon was longer than either the expected treatment duration or the estimated life expectancy. In contrast, for the only technology with a final negative funding decision, i.e., afamelanotide for treating the lifelong chronic disease erythropoietic protoporphyria, a time horizon that was shorter than the expected treatment duration was used. The fairness and consistency of the evaluation process of treatments for very rare diseases at NICE should be reviewed.