Has NICE got it right?

References

• Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on the preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra, ACD: Department of Health and Family Services, 1992
   Google Scholar
• Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Health, 1994
   Google Scholar
• Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Affairs 2006;25:337–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens A, Milne R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales – Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20: 11–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Altés A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. Crossnational comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:300–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1133–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg JM, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:10–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M. NICE accountability for reasonableness. A qualitative case study of its appraisal of treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:207–22
   Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Is NICE infallible? A qualitative case study of its assessment of treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:515–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Health technology assessments by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): a qualitative study. New York, NY: Springer, 2007
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M. Economic evaluation in health care: is it really useful or are we just kidding ourselves? Aust Econ Rev 2004;37:3–11
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ. Why don’t American use cost-effectiveness analysis? Am J Manag Care 2004;10:308–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams A. What Could be Nicer Than NICE? Annual Lecture 2004. London: Office of Health Economics, 2004
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guide to the technology appraisal process (reference N0514). London: NICE, April 2004
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). About technology appraisals. Available online at www.nice.org. uk/page.aspx?o=202425. Last accessed December 30, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Burke K. No cash to implement NICE, health authorities tell MPs. BMJ 2002;324:258
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freemantle N. Commentary: is NICE delivering the goods? BMJ 2004;329:1003–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, et al. What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. BMJ 2004;329:999
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guideline development methods: information for national collaborating centres and guideline developers. London: NICE, February 2004 (updated February 2005)
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The Guidelines Manual 2006. London: NICE, April 2006
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The guideline development process: an overview for stakeholders, the public and the NHS, 2nd edn. London: NICE, September 2006
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO) Technology appraisal programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. A review by WHO. June-July 2003. Copenhagen: World Health Organization (WHO), 2003. Available online at www.nice. org.uk/Docref.asp?d=85797. Last accessed June 30, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Devlin N, Parkin D, Gold M. WHO evaluates NICE: the report card is good, but incomplete. BMJ 2003;327:1061–2
   Google Scholar
• Maynard A. Towards a Euro-NICE? Eurohealth 2001;7:26
   Google Scholar
• Quam L, Smith R. What can the UK and US health systems learn from each other? BMJ 2005;330:530–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC. Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1516–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money. NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 2005;294:2618–22
   Google Scholar
• Deutscher Bundestag. Gesetz zur Stärkung des Wettbewerbs in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (GKV-Wettbewerbsstärkungsgesetz – GKV-WSG). Bundesgesetzblatt 2007;I:378–83
   Google Scholar
• Wilensky GR. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Affairs 2006;25:w572–85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avorn J. Part ‘D’ for ‘defective’ – the Medicare drug-benefit chaos. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1339–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhardt UE. Perspectives on the pharmaceutical industry. Health Affairs 2001;20:136–49
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhardt UE. An information infrastructure for the pharmaceutical market. Health Affairs 2004;23:107–12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Lost in translation? Over-reliance on QALYs may lead to neglect of relevant evidence. Paper presented at 6th World Congress of the International Health Economics Association (iHEA), Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8–11, 2007. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=992668
   Google Scholar
• Schlander M. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process. J Med Ethics 2007, in press. Available online at http://jme.bmj.com/preprint/ schlander.pdf
   Google Scholar
• NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD Report Number 4. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews, 2nd edn. University of York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, March 2001
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Final appraisal determination: methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. London: NICE, May 2005
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. Review of Technology Appraisal 13. London: NICE, March 2006
   Google Scholar
• Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. JAMA 2000;283: 2158–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie D. Cost-effectiveness analysis: making a pseudoscience legitimate. (Commentary) J Health Polit Policy Law 2001;26:2
   Google Scholar
• Editorial: A nasty start for NICE. Lancet 1999;354: 1313
   Google Scholar
• Powell M. Latest decision on zanamivir will not end postcode prescribing. BMJ 2001;322:490
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis SJ. Doctors treating patients with multiple sclerosis will lose confidence in NICE. BMJ 2001;322:491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dent THS, Sadler M. From guidance to practice: why NICE is not enough. BMJ 2002;324:842–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R. The failings of NICE. Time to start work on version 2. BMJ 2000, 321:1363–4
   Google Scholar
• Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;323:1300–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cookson R, McCaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001;323:743–5
   Google Scholar
• Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. Can Med Assoc J 1993;148:913–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson C, Currie W, Mitton C. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health care: contraindications. BMJ 2002;325:891–4
   Google Scholar
• Gafni A, Birch S. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: should ‘reasonable decisions’ lead to uncontrolled growth in expenditures? Can Med Assoc J 2003;168: 849–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gafni A, Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 2003, 21:149–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:2091–100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch S, Gafni A. Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1121–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research: reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995;311: 42–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King S, Griffin S, Hodges Z, et al. A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate hydrochloride, dexamfetamine sulphate and atomoxetine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents (commercial in confidence information removed). University of York, UK: December 2004. Health Technol Assess 2006;10(23):iii-iv, xiii–146
   Google Scholar
• Blades CA, Culyer AJ, Walker AM. Health service efficiency: appraising the appraisers: a critical review of economic appraisal in practice. Soc Sci Med 1987;25:461–72
   Google Scholar
• Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2000;283:2116–21
   Google Scholar
• Redwood H. The use of cost-effectiveness analysis of medicines in the British National Health Service: Lessons for the United States. Expertise supported by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA. Felixstowe, Suffolk: April 2006
   Google Scholar
• Taylor E, Döpfner M, Sergeant J, et al. European clinical guidelines for hyperkinetic disorder – first upgrade. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2004;13 (Suppl 1):I/7–30
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Health technology appraisal: methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents including review of existing guidance number 13 (Guidance on the use of methylphenidate [ritalin, equasym] for attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] in childhood) – Scope. London: NICE, August 2003
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Scope: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: identification and management of ADHD in children, young people and adults. London: NICE, January 31, 2006 . Source: http://www. nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=351276. Last accessed December 30, 2006
   Google Scholar
• King S, Riemsma R, Hodges Z, et al. Technology assessment report for the HTA programme: methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Final version. London: NICE, June 2004. (Published online October 12, 2004: http://wwwnice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=adhd)
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). London: NICE, April 2004
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Technology appraisal process: guidance for appellants (reference N0520). London: NICE, April 2004
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Contributing to a technology appraisal: a guide for healthcare professional groups (reference N0517). London: NICE, November 2004
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Contributing to a technology appraisal: a guide for manufacturers and sponsors (reference N0518). London: NICE, November 2004
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Contributing to a technology appraisal: a guide for NHS organisations (reference N0519). London: NICE, November 2004
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Contributing to a technology appraisal: a guide for patient/carer groups (reference N0516). London: NICE, November 2004
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Practice, problems, and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993;9:26–36
   Google Scholar
• Rovira J. Standardizing economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Soc Sci Med 1994;38: 1675–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:159–68
   Google Scholar
• Paltiel AD, Neumann PJ. Why training is the key to successful guideline implementation. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;12:297–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Trueman P, Bosilevac A. Can economic evaluation guidelines improve efficiency in resource allocation? The cases of Portugal, The Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:1179–92
   Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP. Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23:317–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Civita M, Regier D, Alamgir AH, et al. Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23: 659–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics 2005;115:e600–14
   Google Scholar
• NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD Report Number 24, Outcomes measurement in psychiatry: a critical review of outcomes measurement in psychiatric research and practice. University of York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, July 2003
   Google Scholar
• Gibson JL, Martin DK, Singer PA. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: a transdisciplinary study. BioMed Central (BMC) Health Serv Res 2002; 2: 14
   Google Scholar
• Buxton M, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997;6:217–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the real world: effectiveness versus efficacy studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:423–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan A, Akehurst R. Modelling in health economic evaluation: What is its place? What is its value? Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:445–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF. The use of health economic information by reimbursement authorities. Rheumatology 2003;42:(Suppl 3):iii60–3
   Google Scholar
• Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1–174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
   Google Scholar
• Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:820–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:461–77
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, et al. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:964–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Vale L. Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA 2002;287:2809–12
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, et al. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health 2005;8:3–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005;43 (7 Suppl):5–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 1997;26:303–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Affairs 1998;17:50–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly – Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Appeal by Eisai Limited. Decision of the Appeal Panel. London: October 11, 2006 . Available online at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page. aspx?o=371762. Last accessed December 30, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Wilby J, Kainth A, McDaid C, et al. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults (commercial-in-confidence [CIC] data removed). University of York, UK, February 21, 2003; Health Technol Assess 2005;9: 1–172
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher P. Do NICE and CHI have no interest in safety? Opinion on the book NICE, CHI and the NHS reforms. Enabling excellence or imposing control? Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev 2000;19:167–76
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Newer drugs for epilepsy in adults. Technology Appraisal Guidance 76. London: NICE, March 2004. Available online at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=ta076guidance. Last accessed December 30, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Diagnosis and management of epilepsy in adults. A national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: SIGN, April 2003
   Google Scholar
• French JA, Kanner AM, Bautista J, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs, I: Treatment of new-onset epilepsy: report of the TTA and QSS Subcommittees of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Epilepsia 2004;45:401–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) : Appraisal of methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Decision of the Panel. London: NICE, December 08, 2005 . Source: www.nice.org.uk/page. aspx?o=283566. Accessed December 20, 2005
   Google Scholar
• Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, et al. Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies. Health Technol Assess 2006;10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): final appraisal determination: methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. London: NICE, May 2005
   Google Scholar
• Childs M. Eisai and Pfizer sue NICE. Available online at: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2006-November/ 010207.html. Last accessed December 09, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Scrip World Pharmaceutical News. Eisai goes ahead with court challenge over NICE assessment. Scrip 2007 (January 10);3223: 3
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Eisai to appeal against Alzheimer’s court ruling. Pharmafocus, October 03, 2007. Available online at http://www.pharmafocus.com/cda/focusH/1,2109,21-0-0-OCT_2007-focus_news_detail-0-491533,00.html. Last accessed January 2, 2008
   Google Scholar
• Tunis SR Economic analysis in healthcare decisions. Am J Manag Care 2004;10:301–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). Methoden. Version 2.0 vom 19.12.2006. Available online at: http://www.iqwig.de/ download/2006_12_19_IQWiG_Methoden_V-2-0.pdf. Last accessed December 27, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell AS. Antipodean assessment: activities, actions, and achievements. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002:18:203–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Steigende Arzneimittelausgaben in Deutschland: Gesundheitsökonomische Aspekte aus einer internationalen Perspektive. Pharm Ind 2004;66:513–15 and 705–9
   Google Scholar
• Taylor R. Generating national guidance: a NICE model? Presentation at the 5th International Conference on Strategic Issues in Health Care Policy, Finance, and Performance in Health Care. St. Andrews, Scotland, April 11–13, 2002
   Google Scholar
• Macdonald S. Increased drug spending is creating funding crisis, report says. BMJ 2003;326:677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audit Commission. Managing the financial implications of NICE guidance. Available online at: http://www. audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/national-report. asp?categoryid=&prodid=cc53ddfe-42c8–49c7-bb53–9f6485 262718&fromreportsanddata=national-report&page=index. asp&area=hplink. Last accessed December 20, 2005
   Google Scholar
• Fox DM, Leichter HM. State model: Oregon. The ups and downs of Oregon’s rationing plan. Health Affairs 1993;summer 12:66–70
   Google Scholar
• Harris J. QALYfying the value of life. J Med Ethics 1987;13:117–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzel P. Strong Medicine: the Ethical Rationing of Health Care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990
   Google Scholar
• Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concern for fairness in numerical valuations of health programs. Health Econ 1999;8:25–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savulescu J. Consequentialism, reasons, value and justice. Bioethics 1999;12:212–35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer P, McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J. Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation. J Med Ethics 1995;21:144–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, McKie J. Empiricism, ethics and orthodox economic theory: what is the appropriate basis for decision-making in the health care sector? Soc Sci Med 2005;60:265–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations, Resolution 217A III. UN General Assembly 1948
   Google Scholar
• Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971
   Google Scholar
• Sen A. Why health equity? Health Econ 2002;11:659–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
   Google Scholar
• Pauly MV. Valuing health care benefits in money terms. In: Sloan FA, ed. Valuing Health Care. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995:99–124
   Google Scholar
• Hurley J. An overview of the normative economics of the health sector. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, eds. Handbook of Health Economics, Volume 1A. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000:55–118
   Google Scholar
• Pauly MV. Foreword. In: Hammer PJ, Haas-Wilson D, Peterson MA, Sage WM, eds. Uncertain Times: Kenneth Arrow and the Changing Economics of Health Care. Durham, NC and London, UK, Duke University Press, 2003
   Google Scholar
• Breyer F, Zweifel PS, Kifmann M. Gesundheitsökonomie, 4th edn. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2004)
   Google Scholar
• Culyer AJ. The nature of the commodity ‘health care’ and its efficient allocation. Oxf Econ Pap 1971;23:189–211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culyer AJ. The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 1989;5:34–58
   Google Scholar
• Culyer AJ. Maximising the health of the whole community: the case for. BMJ 1997;314:667
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004;329:224–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Kosteneffektivität und Ressourcenallokation: Gibt es einen normativen Anspruch der Gesundheitsoekonomie? In: Kick HA, Taupitz J, eds. Gesundheitswesen zwischen Wirtschaftlichkeit und Menschlichkeit. Muenster: LIT-Verlag, 2005:37–112
   Google Scholar
• Boadway RW, Bruce N. Welfare Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984
   Google Scholar
• Ng Y-K. Welfare Economics – Towards a More Complete Analysis. Houndsmill, UK, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973;2:147–57
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC. Decision rules for incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Jones AM, ed. The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006:469–78
   Google Scholar
• Blaug M. Where are we now in British health economics? Health Econ 1998;7(Suppl 1):S63–78
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Birch S, Gafni A. Decision rules in economic evaluation. In: Jones AM, ed. The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006:492–502
   Google Scholar
• Mishan EJ. Evaluation of Life and limb: a theoretical approach. J Polit Econ1971;79:687–705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhardt UE. Abstracting from distributional effects, this policy is efficient. In: Barer ML, Getzen TE, Stoddard GL, eds. Health, Health Care and Health Economics: Perspectives on Distribution. Chichester: John Wiley, 1998:1–52
   Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Economic evaluation of medical interventions: answering questions people are unwilling to ask? Presentation at the 5th World Congress of the International Health Economics Association (iHEA), Barcelona, July 12, 2005; Abstracts 194–5
   Google Scholar
• McKie J, Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:2407–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005;14:197–208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). About the citizens council. Available online at www.nice.org. uk/page.aspx?o=113692. Last accessed January 7, 2007
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Social value judgements. Principles for the development of NICE guidance. London: NICE, December 08, 2005 . Available online at www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=283494. Last accessed January 07, 2007
   Google Scholar
• Berg M, van den Burg M, ter Meulen R. Guidelines for appropriate care: the importance of empirical normative analysis. Health Care Anal 2001;9:77–99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towse A, Pritchard C. Does NICE have a threshold? An external view. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, eds. Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds. Economic and Ethical Issues. London: King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002:25–30
   Google Scholar
• Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004;13: 437–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IAO. ‘Yes’, ‘no’, or ‘yes, but’? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy 2006;77:352–67
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of riluzole (Rilutek) for the treatment of motor neurone disease. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, January 2001. Available online at: http://www. nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=TA020guidance. Last accessed December 15, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Stewart A, Sandercock J, Bryan S, et al. The clinical effectiveness of riluzole for motor neurone disease. Birmingham, August 1, 2000 . Available online at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page. aspx?o=14479. Last Accessed February 01, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Bryan S, Barton P, Burls A. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of riluzole for motor neurone disease – an update. Birmingham, January 22, 2001 . Available online at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=14483. Last Accessed February 01, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg G, Lowe S. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20:367–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freemantle N, Bloor K, Eastaugh J. A fair innings for NICE? Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20:389–91
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daniels N. Just Health Care. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1985
   Google Scholar
• Anand P. Capabilities and health. J Med Ethics 2005;31:299–303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronson JK. Editor’s view: Rare diseases and orphan drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006;61:243–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor M. What decision-makers want and what they have been getting. Value Health 2006;9:181–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. When rules about ‘orphan drugs’ go wrong, costs rise. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE Citizens Council report: ultra orphan drugs. London: NICE, November 2004. Available online at: www.nice.org.uk/page. aspx?o=240951. Last accessed January 2, 2007
   Google Scholar
• McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ 2005;331:1016–19
   Google Scholar
• Marshall T. Orphan drugs and the NHS: consider whom drug regulation is designed to protect (letter). BMJ 2005;331:1144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan M. Orphan drugs and the NHS: fairness in health care entails more than cost effectiveness. BMJ 2005;331: 1144–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM 2005;98:829–36
   Google Scholar
• McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, Raftery J. Orphans drugs revisited. QLM 2006;99:341–5
   Google Scholar
• Hughes D. Rationing of drugs for rare diseases (editorial). Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:315–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 1993;24:227–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto-Prades JL, Abellan-Perpinan JM. Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach. Health Econ 2005;14:69–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor M. Cost-utility analysis: use QALYs only with great caution. J Can Med Assoc 2003;168:433–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong CAKY. QALYs: the best option so far. J Can Med Assoc 2003;168:1394–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer D. The value of thinly spread QALYs. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:845–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, McKie J. Economic evaluation of services for a National Health Scheme: the case for a fairness-based framework. J Health Econ 2007;26:785–99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1637–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004;7:518–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith RD, Richardson J. Can we estimate the ‘social’ value of a QALY? Four core issues to resolve. Health Policy 2005;74:77–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:56–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gage JD, Wilson LJ. Acceptability of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder interventions: a comparison of parents. J Atten Disord 2000;4:174–82
   Google Scholar
• Davies M (ed). The Blackwell Companion to Social Work. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002
   Google Scholar
• Olsen JA. Production gains: should they count in health care evaluations? Scott J Polit Econ1994;41:69–84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen JA, Richardson J. Production gains for health care: what should be included in health care evaluations? Soc Sci Med 1999;49:17–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sculpher MJ. The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF, McGuire A, eds. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines – similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001;4:225–50
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J. The role of willingness-to-pay in resource allocation in a National Health Scheme. West Heidelberg, Vic: Monash University, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 80: August, 1999
   Google Scholar
• Adler MD, Posner EA. New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Wakker PP, Sarin R. Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ 1997;112:375–405
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, eds. Handbook of Health Economics, Vol 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000:1723–60
   Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto, JL. Conceptual foundations for health utility measurement. In: Jones, A.M., ed. The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Cheltenham, London: Edward Elgar, 2006)
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium. Atomoxetine capsules 10mg to 60mg (Strattera). No. 153/05. February 04, 2005, published online March 07, 2005 , at: http://www.scottishmedicines. org.uk/medicines/default.asp. Last access February 15, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium. Atomoxetine capsules 10mg to 60mg (Strattera). No. 153/05. June 10, 2005, published online July 11, 2005 , at: http://www.scottishmedicines. org.uk/medicines/default.asp. Last access February 15, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. November 2005 PBAC Outcomes – Subsequent decisions not to recommend. Available online at: http://www.health. gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacrec-pbacrecnov05-subsequent_rejections. November 2005. Last accessed February 15, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Atomoxetine hydrochloride, capsules, 10mg, 18mg, 25mg, 40mg and 60mg, Strattera, November 2005. Available online at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/ Content/pbac-psd-atomoxetine-nov05. November 2005. Last accessed September 01, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Fendrick AM. The future of health economic modeling: have we gone too far or not far enough? Value Health 2006;9:179–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirtz V, Cribb A, Barber N. Reimbursement decisions in health policy – extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy 2005;73:330–8
   Google Scholar
• Schlander M. Cost-effectiveness of treatment options for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents: what have we learnt? 17th World Congress of the International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions (IACAPAP), Melbourne, September 10–14, 2006; Abstracts, p. 43 (Abstract No. 2040)
   Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ. Economic forces and hospital technology. A perspective from Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1987;3:241–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Remak E, Hutton J, Jones M, Zagari M. Changes in cost-effectiveness over time. The case of epoetin alfa for renal replacement therapy patients in the UK. Eur J Health Econ 2003;4:115–21
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE plans faster drugs guidance for the NHS. London: NICE, Excellence Press Release, Friday, September 23, 2005
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE, September 2006. Available online at: www. nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=STAprocessguide. Last accessed December 23, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ, Akehurst R. How NICE is the UK’s fast-track system? Scrip Magazine 2006;152:24–25
   Google Scholar