Article

Perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research

Medicine and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Keenan Research Centre of Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.56). 08/2009; 25(3):272-80. DOI: 10.1017/S026646230999002X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The concept of using public funds to pay for healthcare interventions only when provided in the context of ongoing research is receiving increasing attention worldwide. Nevertheless, these decisions are often controversial and implementation can be problematic.
The aim of this study was to investigate the views of United Kingdom stakeholders on the current arrangements for implementing "only in research" (OIR) decisions and to investigate how improvements might be made.Methods: After an internal review of previous OIR decisions issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), deliberations by NICE's Citizens Council, and an international workshop convened by NICE and the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, thirteen key stakeholders and experts from academia, industry, government, and the National Health Service (NHS) were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interview transcripts were subjected to a framework-based analysis using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.
All interviewees endorsed the use of the OIR option. There was a high degree of consensus for several suggestions regarding how the use of the OIR option might be improved. For example, there was universal agreement that a formal process should be established to prioritize research needs arising from OIR decisions and that funds for publicly funded research projects should be channeled in a manner that would better motivate healthcare providers to participate in OIR-related research.
The findings of this study suggest several potential modifications of the OIR pathway in the United Kingdom and may also be helpful to health technology assessment agencies in other countries that already use or are considering using an OIR-like option to reduce the uncertainty inherent in health technology assessment.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Peter Littlejohns, Aug 14, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
106 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) microdisplays is a viable technology for applications in projection and near-to-eye displays. As the performance of the microdisplay is related to the image quality, the characterization and understanding of the critical factors affecting the image quality need to be studied. The overall objective of this work is to establish a quantitative understanding of the functional performance of the tiled LCoS microdisplay as a function of thermal gradients and mechanical stress. The initial design calls for a three-tile configuration. Such a device needs to be assembled to very exacting tolerances, and must be able to undergo all of the assembly, and operating conditions without significant changes in the critical parameters, namely tile gap, cell gap and/or, silicon tile warpage. The ongoing work deals with the thermomechanical performance simulation of the 3-tile LCoS microdisplay during operating conditions. The focus of this work is to maintain the critical parameters, cell and tile gap, within the prescribed tolerances. Finite element analysis has been used for this purpose and three-dimensional quarter symmetry models have been built to conduct a thorough study of the effect of operating conditions on the critical parameters. The proposed initial design was further improved by conducting parametric studies on material and dimensional parameters. Further, the sub-modeling technique has been used to conduct convergence studies that are essential in finite element analysis.
    Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems, 2004. ITHERM '04. The Ninth Intersociety Conference on; 07/2004
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many innovative health technologies do not have a sufficient evidence-base to allow for adequate assessment of their benefits. Funders in several countries have been exploring arrangements that allow for temporary or partial coverage of these technologies, but only as part of a further evaluation. The public's support of arrangements that restrict access to innovative technology until sufficient evidence is available is crucial if these arrangements are going to remain viable. The project's other objective is to examine the lay public's views on a case in which patients' publicly funded access to an innovative health technology is being delayed until there is sufficient evidence to justify a coverage decision. The case considered is the Ontario (Canada) government's decision to restrict access to positron emission tomography (PET) scans until further evidence becomes available. The case was deliberated on by twenty-six members of the Toronto Health Policy Citizens' Council, with a follow-up survey administered to individual council members. The majority of council members agreed that the approach taken by the government was reasonable and in the best interests of its citizens. The council did express concerns regarding certain aspects of the case, including about the length of time it is taking to obtain further evidence. Public support for arrangements that limit access to new technologies will likely vary depending on the details of the specific arrangement being proposed. Deliberative public dialogue can be effectively used to identify cases the general public is most likely to support.
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 04/2010; 26(2):192-7. DOI:10.1017/S0266462310000024 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: No country can afford all the health care interventions that might benefit patients. Demand will always outstrip available resources, so priorities have to be agreed upon. Such decisions are controversial, making it vital that they are underpinned by robust transparent processes and methods. In the United Kingdom, this is the responsibility of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). In 2009, in response to challenges that NICE was not giving sufficient value to innovation, an independent enquiry was undertaken by Sir Ian Kennedy. The enquiry raised important questions about whether NICE should only offer incentives for innovation when the benefits are actually seen by the National Health Service (NHS) as improved outcomes for patients, or whether future, but as yet unrealized, benefits such as the subsequent development of the next generation of drugs should be taken into account. There is a UK government commitment to value-based pricing but questions remain about how this could value innovation. Potential solutions are an increased use of NICE's “only in research” recommendations and exploration of novel trial designs. Drug Dev Res 71: 449–456, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
    Drug Development Research 12/2010; 71(8):449 - 456. DOI:10.1002/ddr.20423 · 0.73 Impact Factor
Show more