title: A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) exert an influence on the allocation of resources within 'fixed' National Health Service budgets. Yet guidance for different types of health interventions is handled via different 'programmes' within NICE, which follow different methods and processes.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this research was to identify differences in the processes and methods of NICE health technology assessment programmes and to explore how these could impact on allocative efficiency within the National Health Service.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were extracted from the NICE technology appraisal programme, medical technologies guidance, diagnostic assessment programme, highly specialised technologies programme, and clinical guidelines process and methods manuals to undertake a systematic comparison. Five qualitative interviews were carried out with NICE members of staff and committee members to explore the reasons for the differences found.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The main differences identified were in the required evidence review period, or lack thereof, mandatory funding status, the provision of a reference case for economic evaluation, the requirement for and the type of economic analysis undertaken, and the decision making criteria used for appraisal.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Many of the differences found can be justified on grounds of practicality and relevance to the health technologies under assessment. Nevertheless, from a strict utilitarian view, there are several potential areas of inefficiency that could lead to the misallocation of resources within the National Health Service, although some of these might be eliminated or reduced if an egalitarian view is taken. The challenge is determining where society is willing to trade health gains between different people.
authors.affiliation: Office of Health Economics, 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK. emma.brockis@btinternet.com.
authors.forename: Emma
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Cowles
authors.affiliation: Office of Health Economics, 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
authors.forename: Grace
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Marsden
authors.affiliation: Office of Health Economics, 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
authors.forename: Amanda
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cole
authors.affiliation: Office of Health Economics, 7th floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
authors.forename: Nancy
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Devlin
mesh_terms: D017598:Efficiency, Organizational; D055317:Evidence-Based Practice; D006801:Humans; D040841:Resource Allocation / Q000379:methods / Q000458:organization & administration; D013222:State Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000379:methods* / Q000458:organization & administration; D006113:United Kingdom