Skip to main content

Rethinking NICE Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Implications for the NHS and UK Industrial Strategy

There has been recent discussion about the need to revise drug pricing frameworks within the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), particularly amid the ongoing transatlantic trade frictions involving potential tariffs from the United States administration.

Elevating the cost-effectiveness threshold applied by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) by 25 percent from its established range of £20,000 to £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) would increase access for NHS patients to innovative treatments that were previously excluded on grounds of excessive cost relative to their clinical benefits. 

However, this change would also put increased pressure on the NHS budget. It is difficult to quantify the extra spending that might result from a wider range of drugs becoming available for use in the NHS through this change but any extra spending on these treatments would have to be matched by reductions in spending on other health services. Effective implementation would therefore require not only additional funding but also robust mechanisms for monitoring real-world effectiveness and ensuring that new treatments deliver value commensurate with their higher costs. 

The government would also need to consider any benefits that might occur from increased investment in research and development in the UK by global pharmaceutical companies. From a trade and industrial policy perspective, revising the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold would have broader implications for the UK’s position in global pharmaceutical markets. A more permissive pricing environment may enhance the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for clinical trials, research, and early market access, reinforcing the government’s ambition to establish the UK as a “science superpower.” 

But it could also be perceived internationally as a shift towards higher healthcare costs, potentially complicating trade negotiations that involve intellectual property protections, market access, and pricing transparency. The Department for Business and Trade would need to balance these considerations carefully, ensuring that any change supports the competitiveness of the UK life sciences sector while maintaining affordability and equity within the NHS.

Hence, this is not a straightforward issue and the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Treasury may all have differing views about the relative costs and benefits of the change. Ultimately, the decision will depend on the government's political and economic priorities and its assessment of the relative importance of the competing costs and benefits.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more