A comparison of HAS & NICE guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in the context of their respective national health care systems and cultural environments

Figures & data

Table 1. Key similarities and divergences between the HAS and NICE methodological guidelines and processes for economic valuation of health interventions

HAS and NICE guidelines similarities	HAS and NICE guidelines divergences
CUA preferred analytical framework Subpopulations identification and analyses Comparators to take into consideration Time horizon Source of data for health effects of interventions Consideration of every positive and negative effect Effectiveness preferred over efficacy Sensitivity analyses	Possibility of a CEA (incremental cost per life-year gained) as base case in France Existence of cost-effectiveness thresholds Study population Quality of life valuation methods Perspective on costs Types of resources considered Valuation of the resources used Discounting Decision impacted by recommendation Place of the recommendation in the decision process

CUA: cost-utility analysis; CEA: cost-effectiveness assessment.

Table 2. Costs considered in the base case economic analyses as recommended by NICE and HAS guidelines

Costs	HAS	NICE
Inpatient care	✓	✓
Outpatient care	✓	✓
Drugs and other medical goods	✓	✓
Emergency and specific patient transport	✓	✓
All costs linked to travel	✓
Care for elderly persons in institution	✓	✓
Organisation of a public health program	✓	✓
Disability compensation program	✓	✓
Future costs related to the treated disease	✓	✓
Costs due to investment and infrastructure modifications	✓	✓
Other transition costs borne by other health care system stakeholders	✓
Patients’ and carers’ time dedicated to the intervention	✓