The UK’s NICE loses to Big Pharma in a stunning decision:
At issue was the refusal by NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, to give the companies access to the computer models the cost-effectiveness gurus used in making their determination about the utility of Aricept. The Court of Appeal ruled that was unfair.
This could be the beginning of the end of NICE. Once drug companies know how they make their judgments, they can come up with ways to circumvent and challenge its decisions.
If a comparative effectiveness institute can’t stand up to Big Pharma abroad, there is no way in hell it will happen Stateside.
Related posts:
- We need comparative effectiveness research, or, I agree with Paul Krugman for the first time ever
- Do doctors already have a source of comparative effectiveness research?
- Comparative effectiveness research in Newsweek, and parallels between real-life and NBC’s ‘ER’ in Variety
- Comparative effectiveness
- Will comparative effectiveness research really save money?
- USA Today op-ed: Will comparative effectiveness research help patients?
- A comparative effectiveness agency
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
NY Attorney General Cuomo has filed suit against Ingenix and United Healthcare using similar logic – to reveal their methodology by which Ingenix (a subsidiary of UNH) arrived at UCR.
The UK Court’s logic is crystal clear. If you are going to deny or approve, your methodology must stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise, NICE simply becomes an august equivalent of the magic 8 ball.
Ditto that.
Seems fair to me to ask that these agencies be transparent about their reasoning and methodology.
After all, the healthcare ratings of doctors usually have more to do with cost than anything else.
Cheaper doctor = better doctor in their eyes.
Same with drug and device ratings.
Comments on this entry are closed.